ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24-10-1991 in O. P. No. 53/1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, granting an amount of Rs. 75,600/- by way of compensation to the petitioners/ respondents, who are dependents of the deceased Burri Ramu.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 30-12-1989 at about 9 A. M. while the deceased Burri Ramu and his friend were going on Luna AHK 2805 to vijayawada, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5368 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed coming from Vijayawada and dashed against the Luna of the deceased near Dolas Nagar on National highway No. 5 i. e. , Guntur to Vijayawada road, due to which the deceased burri Ramu sustained multiple injuries and died and his friend sustained injuries. The death of the deceased occurred on the spot. The SHO, Tadepalli p. S. registered a case in Cr. No. 195/1989. It was stated in the petition that the deceased, who was aged aboutso years, was earning Rs. 1500/- per month at the time of the accident. Therefore, for the untimely death of their breadwinner the petitioners filed O. P. claiming an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of compensation. The respondent in the O. P. i. e. , A. P. State Road Transport corporation resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing counter-affidavit. The respondent denied the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and finally stated that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high and exhorbitant and liable to be rejected. The Tribunal has examined P. Ws. 1, 2 and R. W. 1 and marked documents exs. A-1 to A-3, After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs. 75,600/- to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the O. P. preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the quantum of compensation awardable to thepetitioners/respondents, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 who have asserted that the deceased was getting rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day. But the Tribunal has fixed the total income of the deceased at Rs. 15/- per day and at Rs. 450/-per month and deducted rs. 150/- towards his personal expenses and arrived at a conclusion that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 3,600/ -. As the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 16 and awarded an amount of Rs. 57,600/- towards loss of pendency. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the petitioners have claimed rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, and the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 12,500/- which is very high. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,500/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, who is aged about 23 years and she lost her husband at her young age. But as seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Road transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, wherein it was held that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded for loss of consortium and another rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded for the loss of estate and non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the supreme Court (1) supra and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, though the first petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, claimed rs. 10,000/- for the loss of consortium, she is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium as she is aged 23 years. Out of Rs. 18,000/-, which was awarded by way of compensation for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document