MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT herein is the respondent No. 1 in O. P. No. 965 of 1990 on the file of the court of the 1st Additional Special Judge for SPE and acb Cases-cum-Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents who are the legal representatives of late G. Umamaheshwar Rao, who died in a motor accident on 20. 7. 1989, laid a claim in O. P. No. 965 of 1990 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below seeking a total compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein is the wife and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased G. Umamaheshwar Rao, who was serving as sub-Manager in Andhra Bank, Bhimadole branch in West Godavari District. He was aged 37 years at the time of his death. On 20. 7. 89 at 8. 30 a. m. , the deceased and his brother G. Suryanarayana Murthy, Manager, Andhra Bank, Mallavaram Branch, west Godavari District were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. AHT 8271 to go to Secunderabad Railway Station and on the way near Hockey Stadium Road, the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 7701 driven by the respondent No. 2 in the O. P. , in a rash and negligent manner hit the autorickshaw, due to which G. Umamaheshwar rao sustained serious injuries and was taken to Gandhi Hospital by his brother, who was with him at that time, where he was declared dead. A case in Crime No. 116 of 1998 under section 304-A of the indian Penal Code was registered by the police of Ramgopalpet Police Station at about 10. 15 p. m. on the same day. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased laid O. P. No. 965 of 1990 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the untimely death of the deceased.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below, in O. P. No. 965 of 1990 a counter was filed by the appellant who is the respondent No. 1 in the said O. P. , denying the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No. AAZ 7701. It was alleged that due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing No. AHT 8271 the accident took place. It was also pleaded in the counter that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.

( 4 ) THE driver of the RTC bus which is involved in the accident who is the respondent No. 2 in the above O. P. , was set ex pane.

( 5 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration, viz. , (1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 7701? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, to what amount? (3) Whether the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant? (4) Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?

( 6 ) ON behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exhs. A - 1 to A-5 were marked. PW 1 is the wife of the deceased. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 apsrtc no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 7701 on account of which the deceased died. While considering the claim for compensation, the Tribunal took into consideration the gross income of the deceased as on the date of accident and also took into account the future prospects of the deceased and determined his monthly contribution to his family at Rs. 4,000. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and granted compensation of Rs. 6,24,000 towards loss of earnings and also awarded Rs. 15,000 to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of rs. 6,39,000 to the claimants with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, by the impugned order dated 31. 7. 1992. It is this order which is challenged before thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document