HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1835 OF 2001 Dated: 10.03.2010 BETWEEN: APSRTC rep.by its M.D. Mushirabad, Hyd. ..Appellant And V.Venkata Subbamma and others .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1835 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa in O.P.No.425 of 2000. 2. The A.P.S.R.T.C. filed the present appeal questioning the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding its liability to pay compensation and also the quantum of compensation. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 4. In the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Varra Ramaiah under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants alleged that the accident occurred at about 9.00 PM on 25.05.2000 while the deceased was returning to Proddatur on his scooter along with his wife PW.1. PW.1 had categorically spoken to the fact that the accident had taken place when the RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 427 came in a rash and negligent manner dashing the scooter which is coming in the opposite direction. Her evidence before the learned Tribunal is clear on the aspect that her husband, was driving the scooter slowly on the left side of the road but the scooter was knocked down by the bus which was coming in the opposite direction as it was driven in a fast speed. As against this, the appellant- corporation examined the conductor at the relevant time as RW1, who stated in his evidence before the learned Tribunal that the deceased, who was driving the scooter at fast speed was unable to control the scooter and thus involved in the accident. 5. Now in this appeal it has been contended that PW.1 is an interested witness and the learned Tribunal ought not to have relied up on her evidence in the absence of any corroborative evidence. But, it was rightly held by the learned Tribunal that the conductor of the bus, who was sitting in the middle of the bus, is not the right person to depose about the factum of occurrence of accident and the driver could have been the right person to testify the manner of accident which took place. Further PW.1 is a natural witness, who was very much present at the time of accident and absolutely there is no reason to doubt her version regarding the occurrence of the accident. In my considered view the learned Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1 and also taking into consideration of Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A.4-certified copy of the charge sheet which indicate that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant- corporation and held as mentioned above. The finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-corporation is therefore, confirmed. 6. The crucial aspect requires consideration is the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged 28 years on the date of his death and he was said to be a businessman and his income was Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month from his business. Ex.A.5 is the notice issued by the Weights and measures Department, Proddatur, Ex.A.7 is the Inspection report issued by the Labour Department, Proddatur, Ex.A.8 is the repaid bills issued by the authorized weights and measures Department, Ex.A.9 are the business transport bills and Ex.A.10 are the credit and debit bills, which show that the deceased was doing kirana business. However, there is no satisfactory documentary evidence forthcoming in regard to the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal considered his income at Rs.66,000/- per annum and that the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,41,000/- and it was restricted to Rs.7,00,000/- which was actually claimed in the claim petition. 7. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation that no incometax returns have been filed by the claimants before the Tribunal and in the absence of that the annual income was considered by the learned Tribunal at Rs.66,000/- per annum for the purpose of computing the compensation. On the basis of the material available on record, I am of the view that the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.4,000/- per month. and his annual income comes to Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/-. From this as per the judgment in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] since the dependants are four in number, 1/4th amount i.e. Rs.12,000/- has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the contribution to the family comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with 17 which comes to Rs.36,000/- x 17 = 6,12,000/-. This apart, the first appellant who is the wife of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,32,000/-. The interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 8. With the above modification in the interest and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 10.03.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1835 OF 2001 Dated: 10.03.2010 [1] 2009(2) L.S. 29 (S.C.)