HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2104 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Challenging dismissal of O.P. No.89 of 2001 vide judgment dated 03-04-2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – III, Warangal, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Claimants are wife, daughter and parents respectively of the deceased Iylaiah and the respondent is APSRTC, which is owner of the bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 1462 involved in the accident. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 12-11-2000 at 10-00 A.M. while the deceased along with another were going on TVS Champ bearing No.AP15 – 2683 from Kamalapur to Uppal on PWD main road, near Toddy Vanam, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 1462 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the TVS champ, as a result, deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He was aged 23 years and was an agriculturist and Shepard and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. The respondent Corporation – APSRTC filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 12-11-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP10 – Z – 1462 driven by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ?” 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the Corporation, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 8. Based on the material on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants holding that accident has taken place on account of negligence of the deceased, as such, they are not entitled to any compensation. Challenging the same, claimants preferred this appeal. 9. Now contention of the learned counsel for the claimants, appellants, is that accident has taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the bus involved in the accident, as such, they are entitled to compensation and the Corporation is liable to pay the same, but the Tribunal erroneously dismissed their claim. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. Evidence of RW.1, driver of the bus, is that when he reached Kamalapur bus stage, as a jeep was coming in the opposite direction, he took the bus to extreme left side of the road and the deceased and another person, who were coming on Hero Puch behind the jeep, without observing the bus dashed against his bus and fell down, this shows the negligence of the bus driver. Therefore, contention of the respondent Corporation that accident has taken place on account of negligence of the two-wheeler on which deceased was travelling cannot be accepted. 12. Evidence of PW.2 is that bus hit the deceased, who was going on TVS Moped. PW.2 is an independent witness, whereas RW.1 is driver of the bus that caused the accident and naturally he gives evidence absolving himself. Hence, evidence of RW.1 cannot be relied upon unless the same corroborates with some other evidence and the same is lacking in this case. Hence, I am inclined to accept that accident has taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus that dashed against the TVS Champ on which deceased was travelling. Consequently, I hold that the respondent Corporation is liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 13. Coming to the question of compensation, according to the claimants income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month. But, there is no authentic material with regard to the same. Hence, I am inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month and out of which if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum towards his contribution to his family. As the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident, multiplier ‘18’ can be applied for computing loss of dependency. Accordingly, if the annual contribution of the deceased to his family is capitalized with multiplier ‘18’, it comes to Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.12,000/- p.a. x 18) towards loss of dependency. Another Rs.25,000/- can be awarded under the other heads. Thus, claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,41,000/-. However, as age and income of the deceased are fixed approximately, the compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- is rounded off to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only). Claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till its realization. 14. Coming to apportionment of the compensation awarded to the claimants, claimant No.1, who is wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), claimant Nos.3 and 4, who are parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each and claimant No.2, who is daughter of the deceased, is entitled to the remaining compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand only). All the claimants are entitled to interest and costs proportionate to their share of compensation. Claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation along with interest and costs proportionate to their compensation soon after its deposit. However, the compensation awarded to claimant No.2, who is a minor girl, shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for ten (10) years and her natural mother and guardian i.e., claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw interest accrued on claimant No.2’s deposit every month and utilize the same for the welfare of claimant No.2. After claimant No.2 becomes major, she herself can withdraw the interest every month till the payment of the amount deposited after ten (10) years. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 23, 2010. PV