IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2886 of 2003 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport .. Appellant AND Smt. Padma & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2886 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.535 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, dated 29.04.2003. 2. Ramulu, working as a fireman at the Fire Station at Narayanpet, started along with other firemen on fire tender to reach the hotels at Narayanpet RTC bus stand which were stated to be on fire on 14.04.1995. At the gate of the bus stand, at about 8.30 a.m., APSRTC bus AP 9Z 7472, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, hit the fire tender and Ramulu sustained head injuries on a fall. He was treated at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, and died on 16.04.1995 while undergoing treatment. Crime No.33 of 1995 was registered by Nayaranpet Police. His dependents/legal representatives including three minor children and mother filed the claim for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the APSRTC claiming Ramulu, aged 37 years, to be earning Rs.2,240/- per month as salary. 3. The corporation contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and contending that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be preferred as when a fire tender ringing bell was proceeding on the road, the very hit by the bus to the fire tender shows negligent driving by the driver of the bus. In calculating the compensation payable, the Tribunal took the salary indicated by Ex.A-4-Last Pay Certificate as the basis and it deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive and took his age as 37 years with reference to his date of birth shown in the service record. Applying multiplier of 15 in accordance with the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.2,68,800/- and further granted loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.2,500/- each. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs on the compensation and directed apportionment of the compensation and the manner of disbursement also. 6. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the conclusions about the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver are not correct and the evidence of P.W.2 could not have been construed as showing any negligence on the part of the bus driver when the First Information Report was as if the bus was coming from in-gate and hit the fire tender, while the evidence of P.W.2 was that the bus came from behind the fire tender and hit the fire tender. 7. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant corporation and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The respondents 3 and 4/the claimants 3 and 4 were stated to have become majors by efflux of time and the respondents made an application for declaring themselves as majors in C.M.A.M.P.No.138 of 2011 which is ordered. 8. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of just and adequate compensation. 9. The wife of the deceased examined as P.W.1 was of course, not an eye witness and P.W.2 claimed the RTC bus going in high speed rashly and negligently to have hit the fire tender from behind, while the First Information Report, Ex.A-1, was claimed to be not consistent with such a version. However, Ex.A-1-First Information Report by the colleague of the deceased Ramulu also stated about Ramulu standing on the footboard on the rear side of the fire tender and falling on the road on the RTC bus hitting the fire tender. Unless the hit and the impact were on the rear side of the fire tender, the fall of Ramulu and his suffering a head injury could not have been probable. While Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report also shows Ramulu’s death due to head injury, the bus coming out of the in-gate of the bus stand as per Ex.A-1-First Information Report before hitting the fire tender does not rule out the possibility of the bus hitting fire tender from behind. Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet against R.W.1, the driver shows independent investigation by the statutory Investigating Agency which has established the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver to be the cause for the death of Ramulu. While R.W.1 taking every precaution to avoid any accident as deposed by him is unnatural as rightly opined by the Tribunal, not withstanding any minor discrepancies in the description of the manner of the accident, the conclusion about the responsibility of the RTC bus driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving does not appear susceptible to any interference in this appeal. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Ex.A-4-Last Pay Certificate was the basis for the Tribunal to assess the last received salary of the deceased and his age and there could not have been any better evidence for the purpose. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the application of the multiplier with reference to the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not inconsistent with the multiplier adopted by SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. Towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the claimants would have got more if the Tribunal had not confined the same to the quantum covered by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the compensation cannot, therefore, be considered to be any way excessive. The appeal has to, therefore, fail on both the grounds. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2886 of 2003 Date: 10th February, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298