THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO C.M.A No.1379 of 2003 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad in O.P.No.966 of 1998 on 24.06.2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. The parents, wife and children of Iqbal Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in an accident occurred on 01.08.1998, involving A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP10 Z 4432 filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for the death of the deceased, who was the bread winner of the family. It is not in dispute that the deceased while going on his cycle to Yellareddy bus stand and when he reached near Laxmi Talkies, Yellareddy, about 6 p.m., the driver of the bus drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, who was coming in opposite direction on his cycle on left side of the road very slowly and cautiously, which resulted into his death on the spot. At the time of the death, the deceased was aged about 25 years. According to the claimants, the deceased was a fruit merchant and doing other seasonal business and was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family and due to his death, his entire family deprived of the contribution made by the deceased to the family. Further, the claimant No.3 wife of the deceased lost her marital life and other claimants lost affection of the deceased. Initially, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter the same was enhanced to Rs.15 lakhs by order dated 05.02.2002 in I.A.No.2938 of 2001. The second respondent filed written statement opposing the claim and denying the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is also stated that the bus was plying on the route from Kamareddy to Nizamsagar and while returning from Nizamsagar to Kamareddy when the bus reached near Laxmi Talkies at Yellareddy town at about 18.00 hours the driver of the bus observed the cyclist coming in the opposite direction in a zigzag manner and he reduced the speed of the vehicle. In the mean time the cyclist lost his balance and fell on the road in front of rear wheels and received head injuries. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver in causing the accident. R.1 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by R.2. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 Z 4432 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, what amount and from which of the Respondent? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, the third claimant-wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were also marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus as evident from the charge sheet. P.W.2 eyewitness to the incident also corroborated that it is the bus driver who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cyclist. With regard to the quantum of compensation, in spite of the claimants filing Ex.A.5 income certificate issued by the MRO, Yellareddy, the Tribunal taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was a fruit merchant and was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month, assessed his net contribution to the family at Rs.5,000/- per month and fixed the annual loss at Rs.60,000/-. As the deceased was aged about 25 years, the multiplier of ‘17’ was applied and a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- was granted as compensation under the head ‘loss to the estate’ of the deceased. Apart from the above, the Tribunal also granted Rs.30,000/- to claimant No.3 as compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.30,000/- to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to 6 as compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation to hospital and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, in toto, the petitioners were granted Rs.11 lakhs as compensation. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the deceased himself was negligent and contributed to the accident and therefore liability cannot be fastened solely on A.P.S.R.T.C and the same has to be reduced. But, we do not see any merit in the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as the driver of the bus was not examined to prove as to how the accident was occurred and that the deceased was negligent. Therefore, evidence of P.W.2 goes un-impeached. The documents marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly establish that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding in that regard. Coming to the contribution made by the deceased, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the certificate issued by the MRO under Ex.A.5 cannot form basis for fixation of income and the lower Court erred in fixing the contribution of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was doing fruit business to get on his family. The lower Tribunal after taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and arrived at the contribution to his family at Rs.5,000/- per month, and on hypothesis basis it is a reasonable amount. Now-a-days, the persons, who work on daily wages, normally, would earn Rs.200/- per day as wages. Even assuming that the deceased was working on daily wages and getting Rs.200/- per day, his monthly income comes to Rs.6000/-. In view of the same, we do not see any illegality in assessment made by the Tribunal with regard to the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.5,000/- per month, and the same is accordingly confirmed. Coming to the amounts granted under other heads, we deem it appropriate to reduce the amounts granted under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J Dt.28.06.2011 sur