IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.1981 of 2006 Dated: 19-10-2011 Between: Ponnapalli Nagamalleswari and another ….Appellants. And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. ….Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1981 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed at the instance of claimants directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.819 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur on 26.06.2006. The appellants are the claimants and they have filed the application for compensation of Rs.20,40,272/- for the death of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. According to them on 13.01.2003 while the deceased was coming from Tenali to Guntur on his Luna and when he reached near Andhra Muslim College, near Guntur bye-pass road, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11Z 503 plying between Guntur and Cheerala, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his Luna, as a result of which he fell down and sustained multiple injuries and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital on 13.02.2003. According to them the deceased was aged 49 years and working as a scale-II Officer in Bank of India, Kothapet, Guntur and drawing Rs.19,618/- per month. The respondent has opposed the said application by filing the counter denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing registration No.AP 11Z 503? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.X.1 and X.2. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B.1. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. With regard to issue No.2 Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,82,000/- by taking into consideration of the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.19,618/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.2,865/- towards provident fund, income tax and professional tax and 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded an amount of Rs.10,72,224/- towards loss of dependency and also awarded Rs.9,500/- towards general damages i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and Rs.375/- towards transport charges. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the provident fund is not deductable from the gross salary of the deceased and the proper multiplier is not applied, and if the same are taken into consideration, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as claimed by them. The respondent’s counsel on the other hand has supported the award of the Tribunal and pleaded that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration of the income of the deceased and applied the correct multiplier and no error was committed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal by relying upon Ex.X.2 arrived the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.19,618/-. The said document shows that the deceased was contributing Rs.1,458/- towards provident fund , Rs.1,250/- towards income tax and Rs.157/- towards profession tax. The Tribunal has deducted all the said amounts from the gross salary of the deceased and arrived the net salary of the deceased at Rs.16,753/-. The provident fund amount contributed by the deceased is not deductable from the gross salary. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,618-Rs.1,407 = Rs.18,211/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to (Rs.18,211-6070) Rs.12,141/- per month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘8’ by taking into consideration of the age of the deceased as 50 years. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of 50 years is ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of dependeny of the petitioners comes to Rs.12,141 X 12 X 13 = Rs.18,93,996/-. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.9,500/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.19,13,996/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,13,996/- from Rs.10,82,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:19 -10-2011 Ksp