HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: APSRTC is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in OP No.173 of 1997 dated 16.10.2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 13.4.1996 at about 4.00 PM the deceased – Yelamanchili Ravindrababu was on duty as a Conductor of the bus bearing No. AP-9Z-6166 and the driver of the said bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and while it was on the road cum rail bridge, the bus jumped into the river Goavari As a result of which, the deceased died. The SHO, Kovvur Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 43 of 1996 under Section 304 A IPC. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Conductor earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The claimants accordingly laid a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/-. The claim was resisted by the respondent-APSRTC by filing counter denying all the petition averments. It was contended that on 7.5.1996 the mother and wife applied for outside settlement agreeing to receive Rs. 50,000/- but suppressing the said fact they filed separate applications before the Tribunal. It also contended that when the bus was on the middle of the bridge, a cyclist carrying bunches of plantains, was going ahead and at that time one lorry came in an opposite direction focusing head lights and the bus driver having noticed the cyclist try to save him, dashed the bus to platform therefore, the driver of the bus was not at all responsible for the said accident. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-9Z-6166? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so against which of the respondent and to what extent? 3. To what relief? On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the first respondent, RW-1 was examine and Exs B1 to B3 were marked On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6166 by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, since the deceased was drawing Rs. 3,000/- per month his actual income was Rs. 36,000/- and out of that 1/3rd amount Rs. 12,000/- towards his personal expenses was deducted and the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/- was calculated as his contribution to the family. Since the deceased was aged 30 years, the relevant multiplier was 18. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 24,000/- x 18) and out of which an amount of Rs. 50,000/- already received towards full and final settlement was deducted and granted Rs. 3,82,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The Tribunal clarified that the mother, who is the appellant herein is entitled to 25% out of the total compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- APSRTC contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the claim petition was liable to be dismissed for the reason that the respondents have already entered into a compromise out of court and also signed on the receipt and received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards full and final settlement and suppressing that fact the claim petition has been filed. He also submits that the Tribunal erroneously granted 25% of the amount awarded to the mother, appellant herein out of the total compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the Tribunal below has rightly awarded compensation of Rs., 3,82,000/- taking into consideration of the salary of the deceased and his age by applying multiplier 18, and after deducting Rs. 50,000/- which was given on the spot by the department- APSRTC towards full and final settlement. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the award and the appeal filed by the APSRC is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. This Court while admitting the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on 30.7.2001 granted interim stay of execution of award on condition of the appellant depositing half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest and costs within a period of four weeks. It is stated that the conditional order passed by this Court has been complied with and the appellant also withdrawn her half share amount of Rs. 47,750/- out of 25% of the amount awarded i.e. Rs. 95,500/-. As seen from the order, the Tribunal after taking into consideration that the deceased drawing Rs. 3000/- as conductor and his actual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- and out of that after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses his contribution to the family calculated at Rs. 24,000/- and applied multiplier of 18 as the deceased is aged 30 years. The total amount comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (24,000x18). The Tribunal after deducting Rs. 50,000/- granted by the Department towards full and final settlement, granted total compensation of Rs. 3,82,000/- payable by the Department-APSRTC along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It is also further on record that the appellant out of her share of 25% of the amount granted towards compensation viz., Rs. 95,500/-, withdrawn 50% of the amount i.e., Rs. 47,750/-. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal granted 25% of the amount out of the total compensation to the first respondent herein being mother of the deceased, which in my considered view, is quite excess and the Tribunal erred in granting compensation separately. As the mother, the first respondent herein has already withdrawn her half share viz., Rs. 47,750/-, the compensation granted by the Tribunal i.e., 25% of the amount granted is restricted to the amount already withdrawn by her. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part restricting the compensation to Rs. 47,750/- , the amount already withdrawn by the first respondent herein. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 15.07.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.