IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.3067 of 2007 Between: Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Chekuri Munaswamy Naidu and another ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. challenging its liability pursuant to the award in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2004, dated 22- 01-2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, whereunder the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,91,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondents herein (claimants in the O.P.). 2. The challenge to the award is on two grounds – the deceased since contributed to the incident, the appellant is not liable to be fastened with total liability and secondly that the multiplier adopted taking into consideration of the age of the deceased is erroneous. 3. The brief facts are: On 19-02-2003 C. Ravi (deceased), son of the respondents herein (claimants) was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 03 X 8744 to his native village on the Banglore to Kolar road National Highway No.4. The bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-450 belonging to the appellant came in the opposite direction driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle and caused the death of both the driver and pillion rider of the motorcycle. The claimants being the parents filed O.P. and sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. The appellant contested the claim denying the rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver, further stating that the driver of the motorcycle Anjaneyulu, who also died in the accident himself hit the bus in a drunken state. 5. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal formulated the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased C. Ravi, son of the petitioners, in the motor vehicle accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP11 Z 450 on 19-02-2003 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? 6. On consideration of evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,91,000/- with interest at 7.5 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident was caused on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. The accident cannot be attributed totally to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration instead of the age of the deceased himself who was un-married. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus himself and the amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 10. It may be mentioned that in the counter-affidavit filed in O.P. the appellant took the stand that the driver of the motorcycle M. Anjaneyulu was in a drunken condition and lost control over the motorcycle and hit the bus. Thus, the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. 11. In order to establish the rash and negligence PW-2 S. Krishnappa was examined on behalf of the claimants. PW-2 was an eye-witness. In his evidence he deposed that he was standing near Banamakkanahalli gate situated at Banglore to Kolar on NH4 main road. He saw two persons traveling on the motorcycle from Banglore side to Kolar side in a normal speed on the left side of the road. He also saw a bus bearing registration No.AP11 Z 450 coming from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. He also deposed that as a result of the incident both the driver and pillion rider sustained multiple injuries and after the Police came both the injured were shifted to hospital. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not report the incident to the Police and that he was not an inquest panchatdar. He, however, stated that he saw the accident from 100 feet distance. 12. In Ex.A-2 which is the altered First Information Report crime was registered in Crime No.19/2003 on complaint given by one K. Muniyappa. The complaint also reflects the fact that the bus of the appellant, which was proceeding from Kolar side was driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle which resulted in the death of the deceased. 13. The evidence of PW-2 who was an eye-witness and the contents of Ex.A-2 would clearly establish that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. 14. Learned counsel however would rely on the evidence of RW-1 who was the driver of the bus and contend that there was no rash and negligence on his part. 15. RW-1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. In his evidence he stated that when the bus reached near Banamakkanahalli he noticed two persons coming in a motorcycle, one as a rider and another as a pillion rider in high speed and rashly and negligently overtaken another bus coming in opposite direction. In that process, lost control over the motorcycle and dashed the offending bus. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he was charge sheeted in C.C.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hoskote. He also admitted that there were number of passengers traveling in the bus at the time of accident and he did not file any complaint against the driver and pillion rider of the motorcycle. He did not report to any higher officials of the Police department that he was implicated in the Criminal Case. 16. It may be mentioned that the said evidence of the driver RW- 1 is at variance with the plea taken by the appellant in the counter- affidavit. As noted above, the stand taken by the appellant in the counter-affidavit was that the driver of the motorcycle caused the accident in drunken state. However, the said fact was not spoken to by the RW-1. If really, the driver of the motorcycle was also responsible for the accident, since admittedly as there were other passengers in the bus, the appellant could have examined any one of the passengers to speak the fact. In absence of any reliable evidence and having regard to the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Exs.A-2 and A-3 it must be held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the appellant alone and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. 17. As regards the quantum of compensation, even though PW-1 who is the mother of the deceased claimed that her son was earning Rs.200/- per day as a mason and as no other documentary evidence was adduced in that respect, the Tribunal assessed income at Rs.2000/- per month. The said amount of income cannot be considered as unreasonable. The Tribunal however took the age of the deceased and computed the pecuniary loss on that basis. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. It is settled law that in case of a deceased bachelor the age of the mother should be taken into consideration. There is no dispute that the age of the mother was 45 years. Taking the same in to consideration the multiplier should be ‘14’ as held by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Since there are only two claimants 1/2 (half) of the said amount is liable to be deducted as held in the said judgment. 18. Calculated on the said basis the pecuniary loss would be Rs.1,68,000/- (2,000 x 12 = 24,000 – 12000 = 12000 x 14 = 1,68,000). In addition to the same, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of affection. Hence, entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards conventional heads. In all claimants are entitled for Rs.1,93,000/-. 19. The Tribunal has however awarded Rs.2,91,000/-. Therefore the excess amount of Rs.98,000/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand only) is liable to be deducted. The award in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2004, dated 22-01-2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati is accordingly modified holding that the claimants are entitled only for Rs.1,93,000/- as against Rs.2,91,000/-. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J August 19, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.3067 of 2007 August 19, 2010 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121