HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.4646 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam dated 15.09.2003. The husband of the first claimant, who is the father of the second claimant, Sri Simbala Suryanarayana died in a motor accident on 05.10.1998 when the bus driven by the first respondent to the claim hit him with the rear wheel of the bus running over his head. The bus belonged to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its two officials in the claim and Rajam police registered Crime No.96 of 1998 against the bus driver. The deceased was claimed to be aged about 55 years and to be earning Rs.1,500/- p.m. by doing coolie work. The claimants were stated to be totally depending on him and, hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. While the driver of the bus remained ex parte, the Corporation contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and any rash or negligent driving by its driver. The scene of accident was stated to be a busy locality where there could not have been any driving in speed. The driver was claimed to have been implicated falsely. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the dependency of the claimants on the deceased as well as the entitlement of the claimants to the compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of PW.2, the eye-witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1, first information report, and Ex.A.2, charge sheet. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of RW.1, the driver, which runs counter to the independent statutory investigation by the police. The Tribunal also noted that the death of Simbala Suryanarayana in the accident was not denied by RW.1 who admittedly did not give any information about the accident to the police or anybody else. It was noted that RW.1 admitted that he was suspended by the Corporation and was subjected to departmental enquiry regarding the incident. The Tribunal consequently concluded that the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the claimants whose relationship with the deceased is not in dispute. The Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased as a coolie at the jute mill to be Rs.50/- per day based on the evidence of PW.1 and calculated such income only for 25 days in a month. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- p.m., deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and on the balance, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘11’ for the age between 50 and 55 years and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and a total compensation of Rs.1,19,500/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal being aggrieved by the non-acceptance of the evidence of RW.1 and the acceptance of the evidence of PW.2. The Corporation also complained against the application of multiplier ‘11’ and not ‘4.62’ for an age of about 55 years. Sri C.Appaiah Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Sri D.Vivekananda Patnaik, learned Counsel representing Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel for the claimants are heard. The driver of the bus was stated to be not a necessary party to the appeal. In so far as the responsibility for the accident as fixed by the Tribunal is concerned, the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record cannot be considered to be deviant from the conclusions of the Tribunal. The earliest version of one Komaripuri Butchiraju in Ex.A.1, first information report, was categorical and clear that the bus hit a person and the driver did not even stop after hitting that person. The investigation by the police confirmed the death of Simbala Suryanarayana in the accident due to being run over by the bus, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report-Ex.A.3 showed that there were no mechanical defects in the vehicle and it was crushing of the brain and the skull that caused the death of the deceased. PW.2, an eye- witness to the accident, clearly elaborated whatever was alleged in Exs.A.1 and A.2. While no material has been placed before the Tribunal to attribute any interestedness to PW.2 as to resort to falsehood to help the claimants, this independent witness cannot be sufficiently contradicted by the interested and self-serving evidence of RW.1 who admitted the accident and admittedly did not give any information about the accident to any person including the police. The very fact that he was subjected to disciplinary action by the Corporation after placing him under suspension prima facie probablises the culpability in his conduct in relation to the accident and the result of the prosecution before the Criminal Court is not known to raise any doubts on the version of the claimants. On such evidence, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in fastening the responsibly for the accident to RW.1. If so, only the quantum of compensation remains to be in question and the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- p.m. as labourer in jute mill is no way deviant than what is payable even as minimum wages to such labourer under the Minimum Wages Act at that relevant time and deduction of 1/3rd from the assessed income towards the personal expenses of the deceased is in tune with the accepted convention, dependants being only two in number. The application of ‘11’ multiplier was objected to by the Corporation and not the assessment of age of the deceased as between 50 to 55 but not exceeding 55 years. If so, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier is only ‘11’ and the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be considered to have gone wrong in granting a total compensation of Rs.1,19,500/-. In fact, the amounts granted towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium are less than what the claimants would have been entitled to. Hence there are no grounds for interference and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:16.03.2011 usd [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129