THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.649 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation against the Award in O.P.No.833 of 1998, dated 25-06-2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, whereunder the Tribunal awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.9,73,000/- in favour of the respondents herein (claimants). The claimants filed the O.P. seeking compensation on account of the death of one, Gourishetty Srinivas. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are children and claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. On 05-04-1997, when the deceased along with others was traveling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.AHU-1122 from Bhiknoor towards Kamareddy on the National Highway, the bus bearing registration No.MH-20- D-2330 of the appellants, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car from behind. On account of the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. Initially he was taken to the Government Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter referred to the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. He succumbed on 06-04-1997 while undergoing treatment. The deceased was a Conductor in the APSRTC and in addition allegedly cultivating the agricultural lands, earning both as conductor and as an agriculturist. The claimants, therefore, sought for the compensation from the appellants herein. The appellants contested the claim and denied that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that at any rate the quantum of compensation as claimed is highly excessive and disproportionate. The Tribunal formulated the issues as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount. Claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one Chinshetti Ravi Kumar as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The appellants examined its Traffic Inspector, Nanded as R.W.1 and Conductor as R.W.2. Based on the evidence adduced and material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the fact that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal based on Ex.A6 awarded Rs.9,18,000/- as compensation towards pecuniary loss, in addition awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection in favour of the claimants 2 to 4 and Rs.5,000/- in favour of claimants 5 and 6, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards medical and conveyance expenses, in all Rs.9,73,000/- with 9% interest. This appeal is filed against the said award. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Since the finding of the Tribunal on the question of rash and negligence was decided based on reliable evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly did not dispute the correctness of the issue in this appeal. The challenge is restricted only to the quantum of compensation, which was computed not only based on the salary of the deceased as a conductor of the APSRTC, but also by taking into consideration the alleged income from agriculture. The challenge is to the extent of the award which took into consideration the income from the alleged agricultural source. The salary income of the deceased is not disputed. Therefore, the only point for consideration is whether the agricultural income, which was added for computation of the income of the deceased is not liable to be taken into consideration and if so, to what amount of just compensation the claimants are entitled to. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Conductor in the APSRTC. The appellants themselves filed Ex.B1, which confirms this fact and that the deceased was earning a total salary of Rs.3,374.80. Ex.B1 also discloses the date of birth of the deceased as 10-06-1968 (date of accident 05-04-1997). The deceased was, therefore, aged about 29 years. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that her husband was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- and cultivating Ac.8.00 of agricultural land and getting a net income of Rs.2,00,000/- from agriculture and the deceased was contributing the entire amount to the family. She also deposed that the employees whoever working along with the deceased were getting Rs.8,000/- per month and had the deceased been alive, he would be earning the same salary of Rs.8,000/-. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the salary was not more than Rs.2,000/- per month and that her parents-in-law are looking after the agricultural operations. In support of the claim towards agricultural income, the Income Certificate issued by the M.R.O., Bhiknoor, was filed as Ex.A6. P.W.2 also stated in his evidence that the deceased was a Conductor in the R.T.C. and also doing business in food grains. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning any amount from the business. In his evidence, R.W.1, Traffic Inspector of the appellants, admitted that Ex.B1 is the particulars of the salary certificate and date of birth of the deceased. He admitted that the date of birth of the deceased was 10-06- 1998 and the last salary drawn was Rs.3,374.80Ps. From the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B1, it is evident that the salary of the deceased was Rs.3,374.80 Ps. (say Rs.3,375/-) and the age of the deceased was 29 years as on the date of accident. It is not in dispute that the deceased, since aged only 29 years with long career, would have earned promotion as Assistant Depot Clark and Depot Clark. Applying the principles in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC [1] having regard to the promotional chances, the income has to be enhanced at 50% towards future prospects. Taking the same into consideration, the income for the computation of pecuniary loss would be Rs.5,062/- (Rs.3,375/- + 1,687) per month and Rs.60,744/- per annum. Applying the multiplier “17” as per the said judgment, the total loss would be Rs.10,32,648 (Rs.60744 x 17). After deducting 1/4th from it, the amount comes to Rs.7,74,486/-. The Tribunal has, however, added Rs.36,000/-per annum to the income allegedly on the ground that the deceased was earning from agricultural source as per Ex.A6 and after deducting 1/3 took Rs.24,000/- into consideration. It may be mentioned that as per Ex.A6, the deceased is not the owner of the agricultural land. The lands in Sy.Nos.38/AA, 39, 57/AA stand in the name of Gourishetty Laxmi Narayana, who is the father of the deceased. It cannot, therefore, be said that the deceased was entitled to the income from the agricultural source. The amount so computed by the Tribunal based on Ex.A6 is, therefore, liable to be ignored. However, as discussed above, the pecuniary loss would be Rs.7,74,486/-. In addition to the same, the claimants are also entitled of other sums awarded by the Tribunal. In total, the claimants are entitled for Rs.8,29,486/- towards compensation. However, the Tribunal has got awarded Rs.9,73,000/-, which is in excess to an extent of Rs.1,43,514/-. It is, therefore, to be held that the said amount is liable to be reduced from out of the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal and consequently it is held that the appellants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.8,29,486/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Award in O.P.No.833 of 1998 is accordingly modified. The Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23rd July, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.649 of 2003 Date : 23-07-2010 Between : Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Bombay & another .. Appellant And Gourishetty Rajani and 5 others .. Respondents [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121