THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No. 989 of 2008 23-02-2010 Between: A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Secunderabad. ……….Petitioner And G.Babu Rao and another. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No. 989 of 2008 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) The AP State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘the Corporation) has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21-11-2006 passed in M.V.O.P. No.293 of 2005 by the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The facts of the case are the deceased G. Dinesh Kumar, on 08.04.2004 the petitioner was returning home from college in APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP 09Z 5641. While so, another APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657 coming from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its Driver with high speed, hit the APSRTC Bus in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the collision, the deceased suffered grievous injuries, and while he was undergoing treatment in hospital, succumbed to his injuries. The deceased at the time of accident, was 20 years old and was studying B.Tech, 1st year and was said to be giving home tuitions to about 20 students of X class and Intermediate and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, on account of his death, the claimants, who are his parents, namely father and mother, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the APSRTC. 3. The appellant-Corporation, which was respondent in the M.V.O.P., filed counter contending that the alleged accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of its bus, but due to the negligence on the part of the deceased only. The compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive as the deceased was not earning Rs.10,000/- per month and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation, and hence prayed that the M.V.O.P. be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal upon considering the rival pleadings, formulated the following issues for consideration: 1.Whether the accident occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing Regn. No. AP 10Z 1657? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed by the claimants and APSRTC, and particularly taking into consideration the age of the deceased, who at the time of accident was 20 years and was studying B.Tech 1st year and was said to be giving home tuitions, the Tribunal opined that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month, but however, fixed his earning capacity after completion of the course at Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1.20 lakhs per annum. After deducting one-third out of the said amount towards his personal expenses, determined the loss of income to his parents at Rs. 80,000/-, and taking into consideration the average age of the parents of the deceased at 43, applied the multiplier 15, and determined the compensation payable to the claimants towards loss of life and future earnings of their son at Rs.12,00,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the Tribunal committed a gross error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, and instead it ought to have held that the deceased was equally responsible for the accident. He further submitted that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the claimants, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing Rs.10,000/- per month as the earning capacity of the deceased after completion of his course. He further submitted that applying the multiplier 15 for the average age of 43 is erroneous and the appropriate multiplier for that age should be ‘14’, and in support of this argument, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- claimants submits that there is no evidence adduced by the appellant- Corporation to disprove the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He submitted that the deceased at the time of the accident was studying B.Tech 1st year and giving home tuitions, and in view of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union[2], the minimum income of the deceased should be taken at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Thus, if the compensation is calculated by taking the said income, the claimants will be entitled to more compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal. He, thus prayed that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Corporation and the learned counsel for the claimants the following questions do arise for consideration by this Court: (a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657 or whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the causing of the accident? and (b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is excessive and requires reduction or is just and adequate warranting no interference with the award. 7. In re Question No.1: A perusal of the O.P. record, including the evidence adduced by the respective parties, would disclose that the appellant-Corporation has not examined any witness nor marked any document to disprove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657. On the other hand, the claimants to prove that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing Registration No. AP10Z 1657 by its driver, examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who in their examination stated that they were travelling in the bus that was following the bus in which the deceased was travelling with a distance of 5 or 6 ft., and that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657. Apart, from this oral evidence, the claimants also placed documentary evidence placed by the claimants, namely Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- Chargesheet and Ex.A6-MVI Report, and a perusal of the same, clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657. Thus from this evidence placed by the claimants, it is clear that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 1657 and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the causing of the accident. 8. In Re Question No. 2: The deceased, admittedly, at the time of accident was aged 21 years and was studying B.Tech 1st year. Though the claimants pleaded and produced oral evidence to say that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- by giving home tuitions, the fact remains, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the same. However, considering the fact that if the deceased had been alive, the deceased, who was studying B.Tech 1st year upon completion of his course would have earned between Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his monthly earning capacity at Rs.10,000/-. In B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkates Bus Station, a Division Bench of this Court, held that the salary of persons, who are holding a bachelors degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month and the income of persons who completed M.Tech., M.C.A., M.B.A. can be fixed a little higher at Rs.15,000/-, and in case of students studying III year or II year as the case may be, 10% per year can be deducted, and half of the amount so fixed, should be deducted towards his personal expenses, and the other half should be taken towards loss of dependency. In the case on hand, since the deceased at the time of death was studying B.Tech 1st year, and considering the fact that the salary of a person who holds B.Tech. degree can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month, we are of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.9,600/-, and if 50% of the said amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of his contribution to the family would be Rs.4,800/- per month, and having regard to the fact that the age of the mother of the deceased at the time of accident was 43 years, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier 14 has to be taken, and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency of the claimants due to the death of the deceased would work out to (Rs.4,800/- x 12 x 14) Rs. 8,06,400/-. Accordingly, it has to be held that the claimants on account of the death of their son, are entitled to Rs.8,06,400/- towards loss of dependency and not Rs.12,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Admittedly, the Tribunal did not award any compensation to the claimants towards loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses. The claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,26,400/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Dated:23-02-2010 _____________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI KVR [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.)