IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1891 OF 2010 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1822 OF 2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.1891 OF 2010 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another …Appellant A n d Smt.V.Saritha and others ..Respondents A n d M.A.C.M.A.No.1822 OF 2011 Smt.V.Saritha and others …Appellant A n d APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1891 OF 2010 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1822 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.1891 of 2010 is ﬁled by the ASRTC questioning the award passed on 13.07.2009 in O.P.No.2684 of 2006, on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the claim application ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. M.A.C.M.A.No.1822 of 2011 is ﬁled by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Arguments of both sides are heard in both the matters. Perused the record. 3. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.8 lakhs for the death of deceased V.Manohar Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.04.2008. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and claimant No.4 is mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day while the deceased was crossing the road at YMCA cross roads, Narayanaguda, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7496 coming from Uppal side towards Narayanaguda, dashed against the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver by taking turn from Kacheguda side, resulting in multiple injuries, including a head injury to which the deceased succumbed while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital. A case in Cr.No.120 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the bus. It is pleaded that the deceased was doing business by selling milk and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. APSRTC ﬁled a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the APSRTC. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said ﬁnding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred appeal MACMA No.1891 of 2010 and the claimants preferred appeal MACMA No.1822 of 2011. 7. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing milk business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is pleaded that the deceased was maintaining 30 she buﬀaloes by engaging three labourers to attend to them on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and that the deceased was transporting about 130 litres of milk to Hyderabad everyday, selling the same at Rs.20/- per litre. Ex.A-8 issued by Sarpanch of Jainapally village and Ex.A-9 certiﬁcate issued by VAO, Jainpally, together with the evidence of P.W.3, who is also a farmer of Jainpally village, would support the contention of the claimant that the deceased was doing milk business and supplying about 130 litres of milk to Hyderabad city everyday. 8. P.W.4, another milk producer of the same village, testified that he used to supply milk at the rate of Rs.20/- per litre. The Tribunal has, therefore, reasonably estimated the income of the deceased from the milk business at Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and after deducting one- third towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.80,000/-. 9. It is to be noted that with the death of the deceased there is nothing on record to show that the milk business has been stopped or that the claimants were not deriving any income from the she buﬀaloes. Admittedly, the she buﬀaloes continue to yield milk even after the death of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that the she buﬀaloes, numbering 30, were sold away. Thus, what all the claimants are deprived of is only the supervision of the business by the deceased. The claimants are, therefore, entitled for compensation for the loss of supervision of the diary farm and the milk business by the deceased and not for any loss of dependency. Having regard to the fact that the extent of milk business and the number of she buﬀaloes involved, the compensation for the loss of supervision on account of death of the deceased can reasonably be estimated at Rs.3,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 52 years, as can be seen from the inquest report Ex.A- 3 and post-mortem certiﬁcate-Ex.A-4. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR, the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘11’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 11). 10. As per the evidence on record, immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital and he underwent treatment for almost 24 hours. According to the claimants, they spent Rs.21,694/- towards hospital charges as evidenced by the bill Ex.A-14 and Rs.65,446/- partly towards hospital charges and partly towards purchase of medicines, as covered by the bunch of medical bills Ex.A-15. Thus, as per Exs.A- 14 and A-15, the claimants have incurred a total expenditure of Rs.87,140/- in connection with the treatment of the deceased at Apollo Hospital. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the said amount instead of reducing the same to Rs.25,000/- for no stated reason. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, as per the decision in Sarala Ve r m a ’ s case (supra). Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.5,03,140/- and the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, in view of the above decision. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1891 of 2010 ﬁled by the APSRTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.1822 of 2011 ﬁled by the claimants is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm.