THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.272 of 2008 and 2360 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in O.P.No.2710 of 2005 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum- XIX Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 27.09.2007. The appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.272 of 2008 is the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 of 2009 are the claimants. The claimants have filed the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 24.01.2005 at 12.00 noon. According to the petitioners on that day, the deceased was going on his motor cycle from Kukatpally towards Ameerpet and when he reached Pokar Timber Mart at Kukatpally, a bus bearing No.AP 9Z 8029 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 24 years on the date of accident and working as Software Engineer on a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. The respondents filed the counter denying the allegations and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the manner in which the accident has taken place and all the averments made in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. On the above pleadings, the lower Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the death of the deceased on 24.01.2005 at about 12.00 noon is due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 9Z 8029, by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? The 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the lower Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. With regard to issue No.2, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- with interest at 7% P.A. from the date of the petition till date of realization with proportionate costs. The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation has questioned the said award on the ground that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident and the lower Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 2nd schedule as the annual income of the deceased exceeded more than Rs.40,000/- and pleaded that the multiplier in “Bhagavan Das v. Mohd.Arif (1987 (2) ALT 137)” has to be applied and for the age of the mother of the deceased the multiplier is 10.45 as per the above said decision. The claimants, on the other hand, filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the lower Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month and contribution to the family should have been taken as Rs.20,000/- i.e. 2/3rd of his income, but the lower Tribunal has taken the contribution only as 1/3rd and also pleaded that the multiplier ‘15’ ought to have been applied and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the future prospects of the deceased. With regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.16 and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the lower Tribunal has also observed that the accident was occurred when the bus has dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from behind. P.W.2 also categorically stated about the said fact. Ex.A.1 F.I.R and Ex.A.6 charge sheet also discloses about the same. Therefore, the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased, cannot be accepted. With regard to the income of the deceased, the lower Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/-, even though Ex.A.12 salary certificate shows that the deceased was drawing Rs.22,000/- per month, and after deducting 2/3rd towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency was taken as 1/3rd i.e. at Rs.10,000/- per month. According to P.W.3, who is the Manager of Thatavarthy Technologies, the deceased was working as Test Lead and he was paid Rs.22,000/- per month and the same is also evident from Ex.A.12. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.22,000/-. The deceased is only 24 years old on the date of his death. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” 50% of the monthly income has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job. But in the present case, the deceased was only working in a private company as Test Lead. Therefore, the said employment cannot be taken as a permanent job of the deceased. Hence, he cannot be awarded any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was un-married and as per the Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the bachelor. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.11,000/- per month. The lower Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘12’ by taking into consideration of the age of the 2nd petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased. As admitted by both counsels, the age of the mother of the deceased on the date of his death is ‘45’ years. As per the Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.18,48,000/- (Rs.11,000 X 12 X 14 = Rs.18,48,000/-). The lower Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased and his mother, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,73,000/-. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.272 of 2008 is dismissed without costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2360 of 2009 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,50,000/- to Rs.18,73,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:18-08-2011 Ksp