IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2745 of 2007 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its General Manager, (now re-designated as Managing Director) RTC Buildings, RTC X Road, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Smt. Gangula Ratna and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant corporation and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the 4th respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and respondents 1 to 3 and 5 were recorded as his legal representatives. 2. The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.40 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 05-02-2007. 3. G. Rajaiah, working in GTN Textiles Limited at the age of 33 years, was earning a monthly salary of Rs.2,325/-, on which his wife, minor daughter, minor son and parents were solely dependent. Rajaiah was standing near Rangareddy guda bus stop on the national highway on 02-07-2004 at about 7.45 P.M. when APSRTC bus No.AP 11Z 159 dashed against him. When Rajaiah with severe injuries was shifted to Shadnagar hospital, he was declared dead. The rash and negligent driving of the bus caused his death and hence, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from APSRTC. 4. The corporation denied all the allegations of the claimants and denied its liability to pay compensation, on which the Tribunal framed issues about the death of Rajaiah in the accident, the rash and negligent driving of the bus leading to the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and from whom. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 charge-sheet, Ex.A.3 inquest report and Ex.A.4 panchanama apart from Ex.A.6 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal accepted the salary certificate Ex.A.11 showing the deceased to be getting Rs.2,325/- per month as salary from GTN Textiles Limited. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of P.W.1 and other documents to be corroborating such claim and deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased calculating the loss of dependency on Rs.1,550/- per month. For the age of 33 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and apart from the loss of dependency so arrived at Rs.3,16,200/-, the Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, while granting interest at 7.5 per cent per annum on the total compensation of Rs.3,49,200/-. 6. The corporation preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal was wrong in not applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor to the facts of the case, which disproves any rash and negligent driving of the bus. The deceased was equally responsible for the accident. The income being assessed at Rs.2,250/- without any evidence and applying multiplier of 17 were also not correct. Hence, the corporation desired the award to be reversed. 7. The points for consideration again this appeal are about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 8. P.W.2, the eye witness, was returning from his work place to his house when he witnessed the accident and he was not alleged or proved to be in any way interested in the deceased or the claimants to resort to falsehood. The earliest version in Ex.A.1 first information report corroborated his claims apart from the opinion of the independent mediators under Ex.A.3 inquest report and the conclusion of the statutory investigating agency in Ex.A.2 charge-sheet. Such independent evidence gets further strengthened by Ex.A.6 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, in which it was stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. The uncontroverted version of P.W.2 and the contents of the documents, therefore, could not have been ignored by the Tribunal, which was bound to conclude that the death of the deceased was due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus. How the incident speaks for itself in indicating any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, is unintelligible from the facts of the case. While the corporation is, therefore, vicariously liable for tortious act of its driver in causing the death of Rajaiah, the assessment of the compensation on the basis of Ex.A.11 salary certificate is but appropriate and Ex.A.11 does not show any deductions from the salary of the deceased. As Ex.A.11 or other evidence does not clearly indicate about the permanence or otherwise of the job of the deceased, no additions to the income might have been positively considered by the Tribunal and the multiplier adopted for the age of 33 years as per Ex.A.7 SSC certificate at 17 is, of course, one figure more than what was permitted by Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. 9. However, the dependents being 5 in number, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased had he been alive, could have been only one-fourth and not one-third as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) and hence, the deduction made at one-third of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses resulted in lessening of the compensation awarded significantly. The amount of Rs.18,600/- granted in excess due to applying the multiplier 17 and the amount of Rs.13,000/- granted in excess than Rs.20,000/- permitted by Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, cannot be disturbed at this juncture when the deduction made at one-third towards the personal expenses from the income of the deceased had, in fact, caused loss to the claimants by about Rs.60,000/-. The compensation awarded at Rs.3,49,200/- or the interest granted thereon at 7.5 per cent per annum, therefore, do not appear to be susceptible to any interference, more so, when the rate of interest also was not shown to be not the then prevailing rate of interest adopted by scheduled banks or the prevailing market rate of interest. 10. In the result, the appeal has to fail and accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-10-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298