HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.1733 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2002 passed by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in M.V.O.P.No.127 of 2000. The respondents 1 to 5 are the wife, parents and children of the deceased- Medapati Venkata Reddy. They filed the above O.P., alleging that on 14.3.1999 at about 5.15 p.m., while they were travelling in a jeep from Tirupathi to Tirumala, an A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2677 being driven by the driver of the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The respondents 1 to 5, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, therefore, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of the incident and was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. The 6th respondent remained ex-parte. While opposing the claim petition, the appellant filed its counter. It denied the plea of the respondents that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and stated that the driver of the jeep himself drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and he alone was responsible for the said accident. It also denied the age and avocation of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident occurred is due to the rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP.10-Z-2677. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, from whom? 3. To what relief ? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the eye witness as P.W.2. Exs. A1 to A8 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the appellant- Corporation, the driver of another bus was examined as R.W.1. However, no documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and it accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 6,01,200/- to the respondents –claimants together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Corporation filed the present appeal. Sri Y.Vivekananda Swamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-. He further contended that the Tribunal also did not apply proper multiplier. He further contended that the basis adopted for determining the compensation, is also incorrect. Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents- claimants on the other hand, supported the impugned Award of the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal while taking into account the age and earnings of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier ‘17’ and awarded the compensation and the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she deposed that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 14.3.99 and he was aged about 30 years as on the date of the accident. P.W.2 ,who accompanied the deceased to Tirumala at the relevant point of time is the eye witness to the incident. In his evidence, he deposed that on the date of the accident while they were proceeding on Ghat road of Tirumala Hills, the R.T.C. bus which was coming down from the opposite direction dashed against the jeep in which they were travelling in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased and the driver of he jeep died in the accident. The respondents also filed Exs. A1 to A4 to prove that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 14.3.99. According to Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of the F.I.R. the bus belonging to the appellant- Corporation was involved in the accident. Ex.A2, is motor vehicle inspector’s report. Ex.A3 is the inquest report and Ex.A4 is the attested copy of postmortem certificate. Though the appellant-Corporation examined R.W.2, another driver of the bus to prove that its bus was not involved in any accident, but it did not examine the driver who drove the bus at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.2 and Exs. A1 to A4, disbelieved the said plea and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of its bus alone. According to the respondents, the deceased was working as a managing part a finance company and was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. They also filed E registration certificate and Ex.A6, salary certificate to show the deceased was gett salary of Rs.3,000/- besides interest of capital ranging between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16 per year. They further stated that the deceased was also writing accounts of Ab Transport and Manikanta Steels and earning Rs 2,000/- per month. Exs. A7 an certificates to the said effect are also filed. Even though, the eye witness, who know deceased very closely and who was accompanying the deceased at the relevant po time also deposed that the deceased was running a finance firm by name, Sai D Finance, however, the respondents did not examine any of the partners of the said f prove the same. Even the income tax returns were also not filed, in the absence of w the Tribunal, took the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month. Tribunal after taking the average salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, and deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal expenses and after deductin amount of Rs. 500/- towards transport charges and pocket expenses, calculated th contribution of the deceased towards his family at Rs. 2800/- per month. The Tri while taking into consideration the fact that the deceased, who was aged about 30 died in the said accident while leaving behind him his parents, wife and children and the other relevant factors, rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the lo dependency at Rs. 5,71,200/- (Rs.2800 x12 x 17). In addition to this, it also awarde 15,000/- to the 1st respondent towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards of estate to the respondents 2 to 5. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,01,20 compensation to the respondents with interest at 9% from the date of petition till the of realization. Hence, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tri was excessive. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the a passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 22nd July, 2010 pnb