HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2935 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XXI Additional Chief Judge –cum-III Additional MSJ, Red Hills, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 1082 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the death of one B. Mallesha in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.1.2003 at about 08.45 PM when the deceased reached near Osmangunj Nizam Shahi Road, RTC bus bearing No. AEZ 4407 coming from MJ Market road towards Siddiambar Mosque dashed Mallesha and due to which, the he fell down on the road and left back wheel of the bus ran over the stomach and chest of the deceased and on the way to hospital he was succumbed to injuries. The respondent-Corporation filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal apportioned the liability in between accused and respondent Corporation in the ratio of 25%: 75% and held that the claimants are entitled to claim 75% of the total compensation only to which they are entitled to as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and they have to forego balance of 25% of total compensation. As the deceased was working as Process Server in the Unit of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabd, the Tribunal has taken the net salary of the deceased at Rs. 5,324/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 63,888/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses annual contribution to the family estimated at Rs. 42,592/-. As the age of the deceased was 42 years the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and thus calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,38,880/-. Further an amount of Rs. 27,000/- was granted by the Tribunal viz., Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 6,65,880/- and out of that after deducting 25% liability of the claimants, the Tribunal granted the compensation at Rs. 4,99,410/- to the claimants (6,65,880 x 25 / 100 = 1,66,470- 6,65,880 = 4,99,410). Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Court below went wrong in apportioning the liability of negligence at 75% on the driver of the bus and 25% negligence on the deceased too and it also submits that the multiplier applied is wrong. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As far as the liability of negligence is concerned on the part of Corporation at 75% and on the part of deceased at 25%, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference in the given situation. The evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that deceased while trying to board the bus in motion through front door slipped and fell down on the road and came underneath the bus. The Tribunal on consideration of entire evidence including PW-2 and PW-3 who also deposed that the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus due to which the deceased fell down, rightly apportioned the liability. The multiplier for the age group 41 to 45 years is 14 as per judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRASNPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[1], but the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 wrongly. Therefore, by taking the net salary of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,324/-, which annually comes to Rs. 63,888/- and after deducting 1/4th amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as per judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRASNPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR as the number of dependents are five in number, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs. 47,916/- and after applying the relevant multiplier 14, the loss of dependence comes to Rs. 6,70,824/- (47,916 x 14 = 6,70,824). Since the Motor Vehicle’s Act itself is a beneficial piece of legislation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NAGAPPA V. GURUDAYAL SINGH[2], I am inclined to enhance the compensation to meet the ends of justice. In the circumstance, the Corporation is liable to pay only 75% of the total compensation awarded, thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,03,118/- (6,70,824 x 75/100 = 5,03,118). 7. In the circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,99,410/- to Rs. 5,03,118/- and reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] (2003) 2 SCC 274