THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.251 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - APSRTC aggrieved by the order dated 16-09-2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P. No.366 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded the entire amount of compensation claimed by the claimants i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum besides an amount of Rs.5,411/- towards proportionate costs. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and respondent No.3 – claimant No.3 is the sister of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 11-04-2004. The facts in brief are that on 11-04-2004 at about 3.30 PM while the deceased was returning to his house by driving the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 21 A 1577 and when he reached near APSRTC bus stand at Rajampet bypass road in Kadapa town, the offending vehicle – APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9157 suddenly came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and his skull was broken resulting in his spontaneous death. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs contending that the deceased was a skilled worker and by working as goldsmith he was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. The APSRTC filed its counter before the Tribunal denying the case of the claimants. 4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the deceased Devarkonda Siva Prasad died in motor vehicle accident on 11-4-2004 due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing number AP-10Z-9157 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief ?” 5. During the course of trial, the father of the deceased by name Sivaiah got himself examined as PW.1 besides examining two more witnesses as PWs.2 & 3 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the APSRTC, RW.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. 6. The Tribunal below taking into consideration the entire material available before it, awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as has already been stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred this appeal. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellant - APSRTC that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus (R.W.1) but it was due to two wheeler driving of the deceased going over a coconut lying on the road and skidding. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the APSRTC bus driver. It is contended that the bus driver was examined as RW.1 and he categorically denied the rash and negligent driving on the spot and that his evidence is to the effect that the accident was due to the fact that the two wheeler of the deceased skidded when it went on a coconut lying on the road. The learned counsel also takes objection for non-joining the insurance company with which the two wheeler of the deceased was insured. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered that since the deceased was a bachelor being unmarried person, his age of 21 years ought not to have been taken into consideration for fixing a proper multiplier for computing compensation and instead his mother’s age of 35 years ought to have been taken into consideration as is held in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], and that the Tribunal has also committed error in deducting only 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of half of his monthly income. The learned counsel further contended that in the absence of any proof as to the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed his notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,200/- per month as stated in Schedule - II to the Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and in the circumstances it is submitted that the amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs awarded to the claimants as a total compensation is on the higher side and the same may be scaled down appropriately. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents – claimants contended that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in handling his two wheeler and the same is evident from the testimony of the pillion rider, who was examined as PW.2 and he has justified in clear terms that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Further, the driver of the bus who was examined as RW.1 was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC by the criminal Court. So far as non-joinder of the insurer of the two wheeler is concerned, it is contended that it is not necessary since the evidence and other material on record clinchingly proved that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 9. It is to be seen that though the claimants filed Ex.A-6 salary certificate to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal after discussing on this aspect elaborately, reduced it to Rs.3,000/- per month which appears to be justified. Therefore, the monthly earnings of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant – APSRTC, since the deceased was a bachelor being unmarried person, the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased instead of taking the age of his mother for fixing the multiplier for computing compensation. Accordingly, if the age of the mother of the deceased is taken into consideration, the appropriate multiplier would be “16” as she was 35 years at the time of death of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in fixing the contribution of the deceased to his family at 2/3rd. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, being unmarried person, his contribution to the family would be half of his earnings i.e. Rs.1,500/- (Rs.3,000x 1/2) per month. 11. Thus, taking the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs.1,500/- per month, his annual contribution to his family comes to Rs.18,000/-. Accordingly, if the annual contribution of the deceased i.e. Rs.18,000/- is capitalized with multiplier “16”, the pecuniary damages to be awarded to the claimants comes to Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 16). In addition to that the claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 12. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-. However, as the Tribunal has already awarded interest at 7.5% per annum only, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 13. With the above reduction in quantum of compensation, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs before the Tribunal. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. Date:8.8.2011 KVSN/PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121