HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2109 of 2004 Between DY Prasad, S/o.Lakshminarasimha Rao v. Uppala Spandana D/o. Late Sreenivasa Rao & Others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.2109 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent-owner of the accident car in MVOP No.365 of 1998 questioning the finding of the Tribunal in so far it fastened on him to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 3 herein (2 respondent died per LRs)- claimants filed the above MVOP under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 12 % per annum on account of the untimely death of U. Sreenivas Rao in the accident that took place on 18-5-1998 near Narketpalli on NH No.5, Vijayawada-Hyderabad main road involving APSRTC bus bearing registration no.AP 10Z 2985 and car bearing registration no.ATS 7800. The claimants are parents and daughter of the deceased. 2. The brief facts stated are:- on the fateful day i.e. 18-5-1998 at about 8-40 am while the deceased was travelling in his taxi bearing registration no.ATS 7800, being the driver, with the consent of its owner- the appellant herein to go to Hyderabad from Vijayawada and while they were on their way, all of sudden one buffaloe came across and to avoid hitting the same, he diverted his taxi to the right side and blow horn, gave signal, but the APSRTC bus bearing registration no.AP 10Z 2985 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligently and dashed against the taxi due to which the deceased received grievous injuries and thereafter shifted to Nalgonda District Government Hospital, where he died while undergoing treatment. 3. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, on the issue as to the culpability in causing the accident, held that the driver of the accident car, which the deceased was driving at the time of the accident, was responsible for the accident. As to the liability for the payment of compensation inasmuch as the accident car ATS 7800 was insured as a private car, but the said car was used as a taxi, at the time of the accident, contrary to the policy conditions, exonerated the insurance company-6th respondent herein from paying the compensation and fastened the liable to pay the compensation on the owner of the car ATS 7800, who is the appellant herein. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at 26 years and his income at Rs.2,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd by applying multiplier ‘15’ granted compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent-insurance company. 5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 26 years and he died in the accident involving the car ATS 7800 and the APSRTC registration no.AP 10Z 2985. The culpability in causing the accident, it has come in the evidence of father of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1, that he came to know through PW-2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. PW-2 eye witness and who was travellling with the deceased on the date of the accident stated that he noticed one she buffaloe came across the road and to avoid hitting the same the deceased diverted his taxi to the right side and blow horn, gave signal, but the APSRTC bus bearing registration no.AP 10Z 2985 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligently and dashed against the taxi due to which the deceased received grievous injuries. Though the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1 and he also deposed that the deceased was responsible for the accident, in the light of the evidence of eye witness PW-2, who was travelling with the deceased on the fateful day, the Tribunal ought not to have been disbelieved his version that the driver of the APSRTC bus was responsible for the accident. In the circumstances, on the issue of culpability in causing the accident is fastened on the driver of the APSRTC bus no.AP 10Z 2985. 6. Now coming to the question of award of just compensation, it has been stated by the owner of the accident car that the deceased was being paid monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- as he was working as driver. But as there is no proof thereof, the income can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, (Rs.2,000 – 1/3rd = Rs.1,500) annually it comes to Rs.18,000/-. The deceased died at the age of 26 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), is 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,06,000/- ( i.e. Rs.1500 x 12 x 17 = 3,06,000), however inasmuch as the claim was made only for Rs.2,50,000/- and in the absence of appeal for enhancement, the award of compensation is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- payable by the 5th respondent-APSRTC. Thus the claimants-respondents are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of dependency with interest at 7.0 % per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified accordingly. No costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 17-6-2010 Nrg HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2109 of 2004 17-6-2010