HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No.2641 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimants challenging the order dated 07.05.2007 in M.V.O.P. No.2266 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad. On 20.06.2005 at about 8.30 A.M. while the deceased S.Srinivas was going on the extreme left side of the Bollaram X Roads, a bus belonging to the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. AP 11Z 5768 driven by its driver in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased due to which he received injuries. He succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The PS, Bollaram registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2005. The deceased was claimed to be aged about 33 years and to be earning Rs.3,250/- p.m. by driving an auto. The claimants were stated to be totally depending on him and, hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. While the Corporation contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and any rash or negligent driving by its driver, it stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only. The Tribunal framed issues about the about rashness and negligence in driving the crime vehicle and the entitlement of the claimants to the compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned order leading to the award under appeal accepting Ex.A.1, FIR in Crime No.62 of 2005 of P.S.Bollaram along with the complaint lodged by the bus driver, and Ex.A.4, inquest report, attributed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 50%. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased as a auto driver to be Rs.100/- per day based on the evidence of PW.1 and took the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. (Rs.100 x 30 days), deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and on the balance, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘17’ for the age of 33 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.4,08,000/-. The Tribunal holding that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of the deceased, such proportionate deduction was made and an amount of Rs.2,04,000/- was assessed towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and on a total compensation of Rs.2,31,000/-, the interest at 7.5% p.a. was payable from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants need not prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and it would suffice if the involvement of the offending vehicle is established and relied on Shahazadi Bee v. Managing Director, APSRTC[1] in support thereof. He further contended that, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Chairman and MD, APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad v. M.Lakshmi[2], the Tribunal ought not to have attributed contributory negligence to the deceased even though there was negligence on his part. He contended as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[3], the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th but not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. He further contended that the relevant multiplier to be applied is ‘16’ but not ‘17’. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation while supporting the impugned order contended that the same does not warrant interference. While PW.2, an eye-witness, in her cross-examination, stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was going by walk slowly on the extreme left side of the road, Ex.A.4, Inquest report, would go to show that the deceased was crossing the road and the driver of the RTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. However, PW.2 denied the suggestion that the driver of the bus never caused the accident and the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. In rebuttal, no evidence was adduced by the APSRTC to disprove the evidence of PW.2. The Tribunal observing that the contents of Ex.A.4 and the version of PW.2 are contradictory, attributed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In view of the judgment of this Court in M.Lakshmi (2 supra), the theory of contributory negligence cannot be applied. Therefore, the award to the extent of attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased is set aside. In so far of determination of compensation is concerned, the positive evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was running an auto and earning Rs.2,250/ p.m. is corroborated by Ex.A.7, driving licence, and the Tribunal assessed the daily income of the auto driver at Rs.100/- and took his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, which comes to Rs.36,000/- p.a. In the present case, one-fourth is deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the contribution to the dependants is determined as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x ¼). Having regard to the age of the deceased being 33 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier is ‘16’. The loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.27,000 x 16). In addition, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘loss of estate’ and the widow would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date:31.03.2011 usd [1] 2003(6) ALT 678(DB) [2] 2000(4) ALD 573 [3] 2009 ACJ 1298