HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2616 OF 1999 DATED: 28.08.2009 BETWEEN: The Managing Director, APSRTC .. Appellant And Dharanikota Nageswari and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2616 OF 1999 JUDGMENT:- 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC challenging the award dated 24.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in O.P.No.28 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the sole claimant, who is the widow of the deceased was granted an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- as compensation as against her claim of Rs.4,46,000/- in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. 2. The challenge to the award by the appellant corporation is on the following grounds: 1) as per the evidence on record the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the said fact is not considered by the Tribunal. 2) The computation of compensation by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law, the same being on higher side, deserves to be reduced. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-APSRTC and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 4. It was the version of the claimant before the Tribunal that while the deceased was going on cycle, the RTC bus bearing No. AP10Z 1100 driven by the 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner came and dashed from behind and dragged him up to some distance and thereafter, the bus ran over him. 5. PW.2, who is the eyewitness incidentally happened to be employer of the deceased and he stated in his evidence that while he was taking his children on his scooter to the school witnessed the accident. According to him, the deceased was going on cycle on the left side of the road towards Jagannadhapuram, RTC bus came from behind and dashed him, he fell under the left front wheel of the bus, and he was dragged to some distance. It is also his version that the driver of the bus did not blow horn and the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver. 6. The appellant corporation examined it’s driver as RW1, who stated before the Tribunal that he was going at a low speed, the deceased out of confusion fell down from the cycle and received injuries, but the bus even did not touch the cycle of the deceased. 7. The Tribunal took into consideration the evidence of PW.2, who is an independent witness and also Ex.P.9 – post mortem report which is to the effect that there were multiple injuries about 13 in number on the body of the deceased, of which there were abrasions also all over the body of the deceased and fracture of the ribs with additional feature of the laceration of lever and contusion of kidney. The Tribunal also noticed from the finding of the doctor that there was pressure abrasion on the right side of the chest. Thus, by mere hitting by a rickshaw, the deceased would not have received such serious injuries at all. The Tribunal rightly arrived at the conclusion that the injuries were not caused due to hitting the rickshaw against the cycle and the deceased must not have received such serious injuries. Thus, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PW.2 as well as Ex.P.9 – postmortem report, which clearly indicates that after hitting the deceased, the bus belonging to the appellant corporation dragged him to some distance and thereafter it ran over him. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect need not require any interference in this appeal and the point is decided against the appellant corporation. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimant claimed in her claim petition a sum of R.4,46,000/- and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. Rs.3,70,000/-. Since the appellant corporation challenged the quantum of compensation including the rate of interest, it is obligatory on the part of this Court to determine the compensation, which is just and reasonable. According, to Ex.P.9 – postmortem report before the Tribunal, the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of his death and the Tribunal rightly selected multiplier 11 from the Second Schedule while deciding compensation in respect of the accident occurred on 12.11.1996. The deceased was said to be the Chief Project Operator in cinema theatre at Kakinada and he was also working under PW.2, who spoke about the said fact. In any event the income of the deceased at Rs.2047/- per month, which was considered by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing, the compensation is not unreasonable. Therefore, this aspect also does not require any interference. As far as the loss of dependency which was arrived at Rs.3,46,500/- by the Tribunal is concerned, it need not be interfered with. However, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses is not proper and they have to be reconsidered. As per the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the total compensation comes to Rs.3,66,500/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the total sum of Rs.3,66,500/-. The interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it is reduced to Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J 28th August, 2009 kvrm [1] 2009 (2) Law Summary 29 (S.C.)