HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2003 Between: The APSRTC represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .....APPELLANT AND 1. Manne Ammaji W/o Chandra Sekhara Rao and four others .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: APSRTC is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in MOP No. 195 of 1998 dated 11.10.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,63,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 06.11.1997 at about 10.30 PM the deceased – Manne Chandrasekhara Rao was proceeding on his scooter near Chomudu Lank on NH 5 road, a bus bearing registration No. AP10Z 2470 came from opposite direction at high speed and hit the scooter and as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and multiple injuries all over the body and succumbed to the said injuries on the way to hospital. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was 54 years by the date of accident and he was a landlord and agriculturist by occupation and was cultivating Ac. 74.58 cts of agricultural land belong to him and others and the deceased was cultivating the lands and getting an income of Rs. 7,000/- per acre on average and by leasing out the land the claimants are only getting Rs. 3,000/- and hence, laid a claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. First respondent driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2470 remained ex-parte and the second respondent –APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition stating that the driver of the bus drove the bus very carefully and cautiously within the speed but the deceased drove his scooter in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether Manne Chandra Sekhararao died in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P. SRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2470 by its driver, 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-25 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW-1 was examined and Ex. B-1 was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2470 by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the circumstances and also taking into consideration of the evidence of PW-1 that the first claimant is owning Ac. 3.00 cents of land and the 4th claimant is owing Ac. 10.00 cents of land and also taking into consideration of the certificate EX. A-23 issued by the Principal MVR Government Junior Collect, Achanta certifying the date of birth of the deceased as 30.4.1943, assessed that the age of the deceased was 54 years by the date of his death and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 30,000/- and the same was multiplied by an appropriate multiplier ‘11’, the total amount comes to Rs. 3,30,000/- ( 30,000x11) and in addition to that the Tribunal granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium totaling to Rs. 3,63,000/- (3,30,000+15,000+3,000+15000). Being aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- APSRTC submits that the Tribunal is wrong in assessing the annual dependency and without any basis the Tribunal assessed the amount at Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of dependency. He also submits that the multiplier 11 also wrongly applied for the age of 54 years. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal correctly fixed the annual dependency and multiplier and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 10. I find some force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant-APSRTC. The Tribunal has committed an error by not deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses. Without deducting that amount straight away calculated the annual dependency of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, after deducting 1/3 amount the annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- (30,000x1/3) and the appropriate multiplier for the age of 54 years ‘11’ as per judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMS (SMT) AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], and If applied the relevant multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 2,64,000/- (24,000x11). An amount of Rs. 10,000 is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards consortium totaling Rs. 2,84,000/- (2,64,000 + 10,000 + 10,000). 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. 12. Taking into consideration of Supreme Court judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. 13. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the APSRTC is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.07.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121