IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4522 of 2003 Between: The APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, re-designated as Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Ganta Mahalaxmi and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 31-07-2003 in O.P.No.778 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Ganta Ravikumar travelling in Auto No.AP-15-3765 on 23- 09-2001 at about 10.00 A.M., died on the spot when APSRTC bus AP 10-Z- 5784, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against the Auto near the bus stage of Deshrajupalli village. Ramadugu Police registered Cr.No.35 of 2001 against the bus driver and Ravi Kumar, aged 21 years, was unmarried and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as Auto driver maintaining his mother, twin brothers and minor sister. The dependents, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Corporation, the owner of the bus. While the driver remained ex parte, the Corporation claimed the accident to have occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver and denying the other allegations of the claimants. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the eye-witness account of PW.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-Inquest report and Ex.A.4-Charge sheet to conclude that the 1st respondent was responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal also took the aid of res ipsa loquitur doctrine to reject the claim of the driver of the bus as RW.1 in O.P.No.270 of 2002 arising out of the same accident. The Tribunal, in assessing the compensation payable to the dependents of Ravi Kumar, adopted a multiplier of 15 with reference to the age of 40 years of the mother, took the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the compensation at Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal did not award compensation under any other heads and directed apportionment and disbursement of the compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal, firstly alleging existence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Auto driver and nextly, questioning the fixation of the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- and application of multiplier at 15. Heard Smt. G. Nivedhitha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M. Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. The 5th respondent did not enter appearance before this Court. The first question raised being about any contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver, it is seen from the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-Inquest Report and Ex.A.4-Charge sheet that the earliest version in Ex.A.1 attributing the rashness and negligence only to the bus driver found acceptance from the independent mediators for the inquest under Ex.A.2 and the independent statutory investigators under Ex.A.4. The evidence of the bus driver as RW.1 in O.P.No.270 of 2002 probably would not have been available for consideration as evidence in this petition. Assuming that the same is permissible as done by the Tribunal, the interested and self-serving claims of RW.1 had no independent corroboration and having admitted that he had been prosecuted by the police for the incident, the driver did not state as to what was the result of the criminal case. The very impact of the accident killing four persons travelling in the auto including the auto driver speaks for itself as rightly opined by the Tribunal and hence, the theory of contributory negligence has to be negatived. Though the Tribunal did not award any other damages under any other head except the loss of dependency, the claimants themselves did not challenge the same by way of any appeal or cross objections and the application of multiplier 15 for the age of 40 years of the mother cannot be considered wrong in the light of the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The deduction of only 1/3rd towards personal expenses in the case of unmarried bachelor was attempted to be canvassed as against the principles laid down in the said decision. But, the Apex Court itself decided that where the family of a bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger and non-earning sisters and brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family will be taken as 2/3rd. In the present case, the deceased had left by the time of the accident his widowed mother aged 40 years, twin brothers, aged 18 years and younger minor sister aged 14 years all of whom were said to be not earning anything for themselves and claimed to be dependent solely on the deceased for their livelihood. The 40 year old mother had to live for the rest of her life on her own and the minor daughter has to be educated, married and settled in life, even if the twin brothers were to be considered to be not dependent after they become majors. Under the circumstances, the deduction of 1/3rd of assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased needs no interference at this distance of time, more so, when no compensation was awarded under various other permissible heads. Assessing the income of the deceased auto driver at Rs.1500/- per month is not shown to be in any way excessive than any minimum wages prevalent at that time under the Minimum Wages Act or the normal range of earnings of an auto driver. Even an unskilled labourer would have earned even from the minimum wages much more than what was assessed by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the quantum awarded is not susceptible to any interference. However, it is seen that the twin brothers of the deceased were stated to be majors in the impugned award and they need not have been granted any substantial sum out of the compensation awarded. However, by the interim orders of this Court dated 15- 12-2003, all the claimants were permitted to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.1,40,000/- deposited by the appellant to the credit of the matter as directed and apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing any security and therefore, it will be just and appropriate to direct the balance due under the impugned award to be shared equally between the mother and the daughter-claimants 1 and 4. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs, subject to the modification in the impugned award permitting the claimants 1 and 4 to share the balance of compensation under the impugned award equally between themselves. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298