HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1618 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22-12-2003 in O.P.No.32 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 09-1-1997 J.C.Ranganatha Reddy engaged the lorry bearing No.AP-21T-1197 to transport guava fruits for selling the same in Chittoor. When the said lorry reached Thulasi Munemma Gudi on Palamaneru – Punganur main road, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7347 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry in which the deceased was travelling, which resulted in his death on the spot. Parents, wife and son of the deceased filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owners of the lorry and APSRTC bus and insurer of the the lorry involved in the accident. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of claimants and RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of respondents in OP, held that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.2,80,000/- as against APSRTC and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and persued the record. 4. It is seen from the record that PW-2 is an eye-witness to the accident and he stated as to how the accident had occurred and he categorically stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident. PW-2 is an impartial and independent witness and there are no compelling circumstances to doubt his testimony. Having regard to his evidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the fault of both the drivers and applied the theory of contributory negligence and held that both drivers are equally responsible. In view of the evidence of PW-2 and other circumstances, there is nothing on record to take a different view and as such, the said finding of the Tribunal does not require any intereference. 5. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month and deducted one-third of it towards personal expenses and taken Rs.1,200/- per month as net contribution to the family, thus the annual contribution comes to Rs.14,400/-. Further, the Tribunal relying on Exs.A-2 and A-3 fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years and applied multiplier '17' to the annual contribution to the family i.e. Rs.14,400/- and arrived at Rs.2,44,800/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Having regard to the fact that the deceased died at young age leaving behind young widow, son and parents, who will have to face harsh realities of life in the absence of deceased, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants, but the interest ought to have been 7% per annum. As such, the compensation amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-7-2010 bsc