IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH [27TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2452 of 2001 APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mushirabad, Hyderabad … Appellant And: Y Jayaramachari & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2452 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2001 in MVOP No.546 of 1996 on the file Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’] Tirupati, wherein, the claim of the respondents herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of their son Venkatramanachary, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.06.1996. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. According to them on that day, the deceased, who was going on a scooter bearing No.ATN 4724 along with pillion rider near Bharat Petrol Bunk on Chandragiri-Tirupati main road, the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1225 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from Chittoor side dashed against the scooter, resulting in death of the deceased Venkataramana Chary. M.R. Palle PS registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 1996 against the driver of the bus and the driver was also prosecuted in CC No.235 of 1996 before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. It is stated that the deceased was aged 17 years and was a student. 4. The appellant-corporation filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant-corporation. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased into consideration while assessing the loss of dependency ignoring the fact that the deceased was unmarried. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. 6. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 17 years and was a student and was unmarried by the date of the death. When that is so, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the 2nd respondent- mother of the deceased, who is stated to be aged 27 years. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the 2nd respondent is only a stepmother but not natural mother of the deceased and therefore, the age of the father of the deceased should be taken into consideration. The said contention is untenable for the reason that the stepmother also stands on the same par with the natural mother as well. As the deceased was a student, the Tribunal has taken the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.1000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, estimated his contribution to the family at Rs.666.66, which comes to Rs.7,999.92 rounded of to Rs.8,000/-. The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, which is in accordance with the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, is considered to be also reasonable, as the mother of the deceased was aged 27 years. The multiplier as per II schedule would be 18. But the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 16. If the father’s age is taken into consideration, the multiplier 16 adopted by the Tribunal is considered to be just and reasonable. The multiplier applicable to the age of the father cannot be taken into consideration and the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother would be in excess of what was taken into account by the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, the multiplier ‘16’ taken by the Tribunal is confirmed. In the circumstances, it is held that the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, making up a total of Rs.1,41,000/- is considered to be just and reasonable compensation. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal therefore does not call for any interference. It is stated that Rs.50,000/- which was awarded under no fault liability and Rs.25,000/- which was deposited by the appellant before filing of the appeal has to be deducted out of the compensation. The said amount already deposited by the appellant shall be given credit to against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the result the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.11.2009 bss