THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.3049 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order and decree, dated 20.06.2006, passed in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), wherein and whereby a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one K.Kishore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in the motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.10.2004, at about 8.45 am., when the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AIY-5068, along with one Sriramulu as pillion rider, towards Redlarepaka Village, and when they reached the village limits of Dasireddigudem, a bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which, both the deceased and the pillion rider sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, while undergoing treatment in the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant-Corporation filed counter before the Tribunal denying the material allegations in the claim petition. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: - “1.Whether the accident took place on 08.10.2004 t about 8.45 am due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z-639 of Yadagirigutta depot resulting in deathof K.Kishore? 2. Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased? If so whether they are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief?” The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondents- claimants. As regards issue No.1, the Tribunal, taking into account Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are the certified copies of First Information Report, charge sheet and Inquest report, respectively, and the evidence of P.W-2, who was the pillion rider of the motor cycle of the deceased at the time of the accident, and who is an eye-witness to the accident, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the Corporation, taking into consideration Exs.A-1 to A-3 and the evidence of P.W-2, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the APSRTC bus was responsible for causing the accident,. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is to be seen that the deceased was an unmarried person aged bout 23 years. P.W-1-the mother of the deceased deposed that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.100/- as batta per day. However, no documentary evidence was filed to support the earnings of the deceased nor any person was examined to substantiate the same. As per G.O.Ms.No.30, Labour and Employment, dated 27.07.2000, the basic pay and VDA of driver of a tractor and trailor is Rs.2,587 and Rs.1,197/- respectively. Taking the same into account, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,500/- per month. As the deceased was an unmarried person, if ½ of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,750/-, which works out to Rs.21,000/- per annum. Further, it is settled law that in a case, where the deceased is an unmarried person, the age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken into account for applying the appropriate multiplier. In the instant case, the age of the mother of the deceased is 49 years, for which the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’. By applying the same, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.2,73,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,83,000/- as compensation, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 21st October 2010 dr