HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 3337, 1751, 3361 and 3846 of 2008 Date: 08-7-2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.1741 of 2008: Between Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent and Moddu Sudhamma and 4 others … Respondents/Petitioners M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2008: Between Moddu Sudhamma and 4 others … Appellants/Petitioners and A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad … Respondent/Respondent M.A.C.M.A.No.1751 of 2008: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent and Uthukota Gopi, Aged 11 years, being minor, Rep. by his father and guardian Venkateswarlu Achari … Respondent/Petitioner M.A.C.M.A.No.3361 of 2008: Between Uthukota Gopi, Aged 11 years, being minor, Rep. by his father and guardian Venkateswarlu Achari … Appellant/Petitioner and A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad … Respondent/Respondent M.A.C.M.A.No.3846 of 2008: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent and Vuthukota Jayaramachari and another … Respondents/Petitioners HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 3337, 1751, 3361 and 3846 of 2008 Common Judgment: Since all these appeals arise out of one and the same accident, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Being aggrieved by the common order and decrees dated 30-11-2005 in O.P.Nos.439 of 2002, 194 of 2003 and 400 of 2002 (along with O.P.Nos.195, 196, 197 and 198 of 2003) on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Nellore, Nellore district (‘the tribunal below’ for short) M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 1751 and 3846 of 2008, respectively, are filed by the appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short), whereas M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 and 3361 of 2008 are filed by the wife, three children and mother of the deceased in O.P.No.439 of 2002 and the injured in O.P.No.194 of 2003, respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal below. 3. The appellant in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 1751 and 3846 of 2008 is the respondent-Corporation in O.P.Nos.439 of 2002, 194 of 2003 and 400 of 2002 before the tribunal below. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2008, who are the wife, three children and mother of the deceased Moddu Muneiah, filed O.P.No.439 of 2002 before the tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12-4-2002. The appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3361 of 2008 filed O.P.No.194 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the same accident. The respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.3846 of 2008, who are the parents of the deceased Vuthukota Padmavathi, filed O.P.No.400 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of their daughter in the very same accident. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, respectively, under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeals M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 1751 and 3846 of 2008 are filed by the Corporation seeking to reduce the compensation and rate of interest, and M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 and 3361 of 2008 are filed by the claimants in O.P.Nos.439 of 2002 and 194 of 2003, respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants mainly urged that the award of compensation granted by the tribunal below is very meager though the tribunal below considered the income of the deceased in right perspective but awarded compensation not based on the income of the deceased, which is erroneous and sought for enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation mainly urged that the tribunal below generously granted award of compensation without any basis and the same is to be reduced. 6. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the common order of the tribunal below, insofar as it relates to O.P.Nos.439 of 2002, 194 of 2003 and 400 of 2002, is sustainable ? 7. Point:- M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2008: The factum of accident is not disputed. The claimants in O.P.No.439 of 2002 mainly claimed that the tribunal below, without taking into consideration the income of the deceased in right perspective, awarded meager compensation by arriving income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. 8. As seen from the impugned common order, the claimants in O.P.No.439 of 2002 filed Ex.A-4 R.C. Books urging that the deceased Muneiah was having two autos and he used to earn Rs.150/- per day. The tribunal below well discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove that the deceased was having two autos, but certified that the deceased was the owner of one auto, however fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. 9. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was an auto driver and he owned one auto, on which he was eking out his livelihood. Therefore, while taking into consideration the profession of the deceased as auto driver and also being the owner of the said auto, the income of the deceased can safely be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,500/- as fixed by the tribunal below. 10. The deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. The tribunal below correctly applied the multiplier ‘16’ while computing the compensation. If the income of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.3,000/- per month, his contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.2,250/- per month. The annual contribution comes to Rs.27,000/-. By applying the multiplier ‘16’ the claimants will get Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. The tribunal below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards non- pecuniary damages and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium but failed to grant any amount towards funeral expenses. Granting of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, in my view, is reasonable. In total, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and sixty five thousand only) against the award of Rs.2,25,000/- granted by the tribunal below. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 11. M.A.C.M.A.No.3361 of 2008: The appellant herein is the petitioner-injured in O.P.No.194 of 2003. According to P.W.4, father and guardian of the injured, his son sustained fracture to his right leg and skull and was treated in the Government Hospital, Chennai. As per the evidence of P.W.7 Dr. R.Subbaiah, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Chennai, the injured sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of both bones of right leg. Operation was done for right femur and other injuries were treated conservatively and his partial disability is estimated at 10%. 12. The tribunal below while taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards disability but not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is now granted towards extra nourishment. In total, the claimant is to the compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 1 3 . M.A.C.M.A.No.3846 of 2008: The respondents are the claimants in O.P.No.400 of 2002 and they filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of their daughter Vuthukota Padmavathi, aged 18 years. Admittedly, the deceased was doing tailoring work and she was eking out her livelihood. The tribunal below, while discussing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Had she been alive, she would have got majority very soon and would be able to stand on her own legs. Therefore, award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the tribunal below against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- is sustainable. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 14. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741 and 1751 of 2008: In view of the positive findings passed in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 and 3361 of 2008 filed by the claimants, I see no grounds to reduce any amount of compensation in view of my observations therein. However, the interest at 7.5% per annum granted by the tribunal is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the enhanced compensation in the aforesaid awards. 15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 1751 and 3846 of 2008 filed by the Corporation and M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 and 3361 of 2008 filed by the claimants are allowed in part. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 08th July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1741, 3337, 1751, 3361 and 3846 of 2008 (Common Judgment) 08th July, 2011.