IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.2195 of 2003 Between: Neelam Parvathamma and others .. Appellants AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad .. Respondent JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.883 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 18-03-2003. The factual background is that Neela Venkata Satyanarayana going on a morning walk on the left margin of State Highway was hit from behind by bus No. AP 10Z 4717 of the respondent being driven rashly and negligently at high speed. He died on the spot, in respect of which crime No.111 of 1998 was registered by Prattipadu police. The deceased, retired Non- medical Assistant, was claimed to be working as a tutor in a private tutorial college in Prattipadu at the age of 64 years and claimed to be earning Rs.1,500/- per month as a tutor apart from the pension of Rs.2,228/-. His wife was getting only half as family pension and hence, the wife and two sons of Venkata Satyanarayana claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent corporation, the owner of the bus. The corporation denied all the factual allegations of the claimants and contended that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself absolving the corporation of any liability to pay compensation. It also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and the interest can never exceed 6 per cent per annum. The Tribunal framed issues on the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and during the enquiry, examined P.W.1 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eye witness P.W.1 and rejecting the claims of R.W.1, the driver of the bus. The Tribunal noted that the driver admitted that he was convicted in the connected criminal case and the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the death of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable by the corporation to the claimants taking into account only that half of the pension which the wife was receiving after the death of Satyanarayana. The Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.4,464/- per year deducting one-third from that half of the pension towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It applied a multiplier of 5 and also awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. As the total sum so calculated came to less than Rs.50,000/-, the Tribunal thought it fit to award Rs.50,000/- permissible even under ‘no fault liability’. It also granted interest at 8 per cent per annum referring to the then prevailing bank rate of interest and further directed the manner in which the compensation has to be disbursed, while dismissing the claim of major sons, claimants 2 and 3. The claimants are before this Court complaining against not taking into account the entire income of the deceased from the pension as well as from his tutorship and also about non- application of appropriate multiplier. The claimants also contended that they should have been granted Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and the interest should have been awarded at 12 per cent per annum. Sri G.V. Gangadhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murty, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation are heard. The corporation not having challenged its liability to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased, the only point for consideration involved in the present appeal is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The fact that the deceased retired as a Non-medical Assistant and that he was getting a pension of Rs.2,228/- by the time of his death is not in dispute and the Tribunal took into account for assessing the loss of dependency only the family pension being received by the wife after the death of the deceased, which is basically fallacious. The loss of dependency for the wife or the children was with reference to what the deceased was earning by the time of his death, but not what was being granted to the wife by the employer of the deceased after his death. If the pension of Rs.2,228/- were to be made the basis for assessing the loss of dependency and if one-third of the same to be deducted towards the expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,486/- and annual loss of dependency would be Rs.17,832/-. Though the deceased was claimed to be aged 64 years, in the absence of any specific evidence about his age before the Tribunal and taking his age in approximation as above 65 years, the application of multiplier ‘5’ need not be interfered with. Though the claimants would have been entitled to claim application of the multiplier 7 for the age of 64 years as per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], even on the application of multiplier 5, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.89,160/- and as per the decision above referred to, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The same takes the amounts of compensation to which the claimants are entitled, to Rs.1,09,160/-, while the appeal is confined to the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- only. Grant of compensation only to the wife and not to the major sons need not be interfered with in the appeal, as the same is in tune with the accepted principles of law and accordingly the appeal has to be ordered in favour of the 1st appellant. Coming to the interest payable taking into account the length of time for which interest has to be paid by the corporation, which is a custodian of public funds, the same can be reasonably confined to 6 per cent per annum on the entire compensation, which percentage of interest was admitted by the corporation itself in the counter before the Tribunal to be the admissible interest. Accordingly, the award, dated 18-03-2003 in M.V.O.P. No.883 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur is modified by granting a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment in favour of the 1st claimant/1st appellant and costs and the appeal is allowed in favour of the 1st appellant accordingly without costs. No further directions need be given concerning the disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-07-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298