IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.Nos.680 of 2007 & 485 of 2010 DATE:22.11.2010 M.A.C.M.A.No.680 of 2007 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director and another …… Appellants And Maddela Chandrakala and 2 others …..Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.485 of 2010 Between: Maddela Chandrakala and 2 others …… Appellants And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.Nos.680 of 2007 & 485 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed by A.P.S.R.T.C and the claimants respectively questioning award dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.292 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.8,81,276/- to the claimants who are dependants on the deceased Maddela Narsimlu who died in an accident involving R.T.C bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9983. 2) It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the deceased sustained fatal injuries when he got down the bus and again boarded the bus at Monikbhandar bus stop and that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and that in any event the deceased contributed negligence for the accident. The claimants examined P.W-2 who speaks to the accident, and filed Ex.A-1 copy of F.I.R, Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet, Ex.A-3 copy of inquest panch and Ex.A-5 copy of statement of P.W-2 recorded during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C by the police. Based on the said oral and documentary evidence, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus driver was at fault and not the deceased. On the other hand, R.Ws 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the corporation to speak to the fact that the deceased boarded the bus after the bus was started at that bus stop. There is no dispute that the deceased was already travelling in the bus prior to the bus reaching scene of the accident. When the deceased got down from the bus at the bus stop, instead of collecting the deceased who was a passenger in the bus, the bus driver started the bus. When the bus was started, the conductor should have closed door of the bus. When door of the bus was not closed and when all the passengers did not board into the bus, the bus was started by the driver in a hasty manner and it resulted in the deceased catching bus after it was started. Otherwise the deceased would miss the bus, in which he was travelling already. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the deceased. The entire rashness and negligence was on the part of the bus driver in starting the bus even without closing passenger door and even without all the passengers getting into the bus. In the circumstances, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the bus driver was at fault and was responsible for this accident as he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner. 3) The claimants are wife, one major son and another minor son of the deceased. The deceased was working as iron worker in A.P.S.R.T.C. itself. Ex.X-1 salary certificate of the deceased was filed by the claimants and salary mentioned therein was adopted by the lower Tribunal as the basis for awarding pecuniary compensation. There is no other evidence let in by the claimants to show that the deceased was also doing milk business apart from working in A.P.S.R.T.C. and was getting income of Rs.6,000/- per month as milk vendor. No evidence was also let in to show that the deceased was attending to agriculture and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as income from agriculture. The lower Tribunal rightly took income of the deceased as Rs.8,282/- per month as certified by the Corporation itself in Ex.X-1 certificate. Ex.X-1 does not read that there was no income tax deduction made by the Corporation. The Corporation counsel contended that there was payment of Rs.80/- by the deceased towards profession tax and that it is liable to be deducted from his income. Age of the deceased was taken by the lower Tribunal as 50 years from the criminal case record even though service record of the claimant was not produced. The lower Tribunal selected the multiplier at 13 and arrived at the pecuniary compensation by deducting 1/3 of his income. It is not stated whether the deceased was aged 50 or around 50 or exceeded 50 years. Therefore, the question of taking future prospects into consideration as per Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] of the Supreme Court will not arise. Since no escalation is allowed because of doubt as to age of the deceased towards future prospects, I do not propose to deduct Rs.80/- per month being paid by the deceased towards profession tax. The lower Tribunal granted non pecuniary compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of affection and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and funereal expenses of the deceased. No amount was granted by the lower Tribunal towards loss of estate. Since Rs.80/- is not deducted from the salary of the deceased towards profession tax, I do not propose to increase the compensation amount by adding for loss of estate. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal to the claimant is just, reasonable and legal. I do not either increase or decrease the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants by the lower Tribunal. 4) In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 22, 2010 ksh [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)