IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1121 of 2001 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Yelamanchili Kanaka Durga and another .. Respondents JUDGEMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.787 of 1997 dated 16-10-2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The factual background for the appeal is that the claimant in O.P.No.787 of 1997 is the wife and the claimant in O.P.No.173 of 1997 is the mother of Yelamanchili Ravindra Babu working as conductor with the appellant at the age of 28 years, drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. When he was on duty of Bus No.AP-9Z-6166 on 13-04-1996, the bus met with an accident on the road-cum-rail bridge at about 4.00 A.M. with the bus jumping into the river. The driver and Ravindra Babu, the conductor, died in the accident for which Crime No.43 of 1996 was registered by Kovvur Town Police. Hence, the mother claimed a compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- and the wife claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and both claimed interest at 12% p.a. and costs. The Corporation contested the claims contending that an outside settlement was agreed to by the claimants, who received Rs.50,000/- as compensation. As the bus driver tried to save the cyclist coming opposite the bus and a lorry was also coming in the opposite direction, the bus dashed the platform due to which 5 or 6 persons fell into the river through the broken glass windows. It was an act of god for which the driver was not responsible and the Corporation denied any liability to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues in both the claims about the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The claims were tried together and PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 to B.3 were marked during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that the evidence of PW.3, the eye-witness, was controverted by RW.1 on behalf of the Corporation, but Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.3-M.V. Inspector’s report probablise that if the bus was going at normal speed, it would not have come over the foot path of one foot height, and therefore, negligence of the highest degree on the part of the bus driver was the cause for the accident. While noting that Rs.50,000/- was paid to the claimants by the Corporation under Exs.B.1 to B.3, the Tribunal did not accept the claim of RW.1 that the payment was in full and final settlement as no attestor of Exs.B.1 to B.3 was examined to show the nature of payment. The Tribunal also held that the statutory benefits cannot be deprived in the name of any outside settlement. It also considered that at that moment, the grief stricken mother and wife may be possibly unaware of their rights. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the loss of contribution to the family on the balance of income after deducting 1/3rd from the salary income and applying a multiplier of 18 for the age of 30 years of the deceased. It assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-. As Rs.50,000/- was already received by the claimants, the Tribunal awarded the balance of Rs.,3,82,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs. It directed apportionment between the claimants and gave directions about the disbursement. The Corporation challenged the award in this appeal contending that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and that Rs.50,000/- were received in full and final settlement. The appropriate multiplier would have been 15 and hence, the impugned award is requested to be reversed. Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri S. Siva Bhami Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the Corporation is liable to pay the compensation and if so, to what extent? Though the Corporation attempted to question the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident in this appeal, it could not examine the driver, who also died in the accident and RW.1 was noted by the Tribunal to be not personally knowing how the accident had taken place. K. Phillips, mechanic of the Corporation on whose report Ex.A.1-FIR was registered, also was not examined and hence, there was no evidence to contradict the claims of the eye-witness as PW.3 or the presumption of the Tribunal about the negligence of the bus driver from the manner of accident itself. The Tribunal concluded that but for the rashness or negligence in driving, the bus would not have climbed the footpath of 1/4 feet height and there are no strong reasons to deviate from the conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard. If its driver was negligent or rash in driving the vehicle at the time of accident, the Corporation cannot disown its vicarious liability to justly and adequately compensate the legal representatives/ dependents of the deceased. In fact, its very defence about the settlement of all claims by payment of Rs.50,000/- under Exs.B.1 to B.3 itself is suggestive of the Corporation being conscious of its liability to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal in assessing the compensation made a mathematical calculation of loss of dependency by deducting 1/3rd of the salary income towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying a multiplier of 18 considered appropriate for the age of the deceased at 30 years. The Tribunal granted only the loss of dependency on such calculation and deducted Rs.50,000/- already paid by the Corporation. While the payment of Rs.50,000/- made by the Corporation is not disclosed by Exs.B.1 to B.3 or the evidence of RW.1 to have been received as full and final settlement either by the mother or by the wife, the opinion of the Tribunal that there could not have been an estoppel against the statute notwithstanding any such payment deserves every weight and the Corporation should be made liable to pay the compensation in terms of the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, it is seen from Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] that the appropriate multiplier for a person of the age of 30 years would have been 17 and not 18 and therefore, a sum of Rs.24,000/- appears to have been granted in excess towards loss of dependency. The other amounts to which the claimants in such cases are entitled, according to the said decision, are Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- to the wife towards loss of consortium. If this amount of Rs.20,000/- were to be given credit to, the amount to be deducted is only Rs.4,000/- and after deducting the payment of Rs.50,000/- made by the Corporation, the balance compensation to which the claimants will be entitled will be Rs.3,78,000/-. In the impugned award, the Tribunal directed that the mother shall get 25% out of the total compensation. However, in C.M.A.No.1791 of 2001 filed by APSRTC against the award in O.P.No.173 of 1997 in favour of the mother, a learned Judge of this Court by the judgment dated 17-7-2001 restricted the compensation payable to the mother only to Rs.47,750/-. The learned Judge considered that grant of Rs.95,500/- towards 25% of the compensation to the mother is quite excessive and that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation separately, but the learned Judge did not express any opinion on the quantum of compensation to which the wife is entitled. After payment of whatever portion of the compensation that was awarded to the mother, the wife will be consequently entitled to the balance of compensation out of Rs.3,78,000/- and interfering with the interest granted on the compensation at this distance of time as requested by Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation, will also be not equitable or just, keeping in view the decrease in value of the rupee between October 2000 and now and the consequential real value of the compensation that will be received by the wife. While the costs as awarded by the Tribunal shall follow the event, the appeal by the Corporation should, therefore, fail except to the extent of the said sum of Rs.4,000/-. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/mother, submitted that the mother is taking steps to seek review of the judgment in C.M.A.No.1791 of 2001 on which no expression of opinion can be made herein and as already stated, out of Rs.3,78,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. and costs, the wife will be entitled to the entire balance of compensation after payment of whatever compensation to which the mother is entitled before or after such review. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed without costs except to the extent of Rs.4,000/-. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-01-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298