THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 322 of 2010 and MACMA (SR) No.6840 of 2010 Common Judgment: Since both these appeals arise out of the same award dated 30.03.2009 passed in O.P. No. 963 of 2008 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. MACMA No.322 of 2010 is filed by the APSRTC and MACMA (SR) No.6840 of 2010 is filed by the claimants. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the minor son and claimants 3 and 4 are the mother and father of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that on 10.01.2008 at about 3.00 PM while the deceased Rajasekhar Reddy was proceeding from Uppal towards Taranaka side on his motor cycle and when he reached near Little Flower Junior college, Uppal, the offending bus bearing No. AP 10Z 3479 belonging to the respondents-APSRTC, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from behind the deceased and dashed against his motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and the bus ran over the deceased due to which he died on the spot. The police registered a case against the driver of the bus and after completing investigation laid charge sheet against him in Crime No.23 of 2008 of PS Uppal. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing sweet corn and baby corn business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and contending that the deceased was the sole earning member of their family, the claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The respondents filed a counter denying the material averments made by the claimants. It is also their specific case that the driver of the bus was not negligent. The Tribunal framed the following issued. 1. Whether the death of the deceased M. Raja Shekhar Reddy on 10.01.2008 at about 3.00 PM is due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 3479 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and one M. Narsimhulu was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents none were examined and no documents have been marked. The Tribunal, believing the evidence of PW.2 and considering the documents filed by the claimants, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On point No.2, the Tribunal also assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.4,000/- per month and the annual loss of dependency at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4000 x 12). Then by applying the multiplier ‘16’, estimated the total loss of dependency at Rs.7,68,000/- (Rs.48000 x 16), and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.8,03,000/-, which includes Rs.15000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, Rs.10,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.5000/- each to the claimants 3 and 4 towards loss of love and affection. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submitted that in fact there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased since he had suddenly crossed the road, but the Tribunal has not considered the said issue. His main submission is that without any proof of income, the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the APSRTC has neither taken the ground of contributory negligence in the counter nor in the evidence. It is also submitted that the deceased was a graduate of B.Sc (Agriculture) and that he had undergone management course and that he was doing business of supply of sweet corns and baby corns and his income was more than Rs.10,000/- per month. The points that arise for consideration are; (1) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? and (2) What is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the claimants? POINT NO.1: Admittedly, the respondents have not taken any such plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in their counter filed before the Tribunal. I have gone through the recitals of Ex.A1 copy of FIR, charge sheet Ex.A2and Exs.A3 and A4 inquest and post-mortem reports, but none of these documents reveal that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. More over, the claimants have examined one M. Narsimhulu, the eye witness to the accident, as PW.2. According to him, he was going in a seven seated auto in the same direction just behind the motor cycle of the deceased and that the offending bus also came in the same direction and dashed against the deceased from behind and then ran over the deceased resulting his death on the spot. Admittedly, there is no rebuttal evidence in this case. Since there is no rebuttal evidence in this case, it appears that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and the recitals of the documents filed by the claimants. Therefore, I hold that there is nothing to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in this case. The evidence proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. POINT NO.2: The claimants have filed Ex.A8 bonafide-cum-conduct certificate of the deceased issued by Dr. B.R.R. Government College, Jadcherla, which shows that the deceased was a bonafide student of B.Sc (BZC) of their college during the academic year 1995-1998. Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by the National Research Centre for Grapes, which reveals that the deceased had participated in the training programme on ‘Integrated Pest Management in Grapes’. Ex.A10 is the bank passbook of the deceased. Ex.A11 are the bunch of receipts showing the business of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 31 years as on the date of his death. He was in prime age. He had completed his B.Sc (BZC) course and also had undergone training in Integrated Pest Management in Grapes. He was also doing business of supply of sweet corn and baby corn. Having regard to the age of the deceased, his educational qualifications and the nature of business being done by him as on the date of his death, I consider it just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at Rs.7,200/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4800/-. Accordingly, the annual loss of contribution comes to Rs.57,600/-. If the same is multiplied with the appropriate multiplier of ‘16’, the total loss of contribution comes to Rs.9,21,600/-. In addition to that, the claimants are also entitled to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.15000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, Rs.10,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.5000/- each to the claimants 3 and 4 towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in all an amount of Rs.9,51,600/- is awarded. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and reasonable to award interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly, both the MACMAs are disposed of. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 30.03.2011 Nsr