S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act ). The General Manager, APSRTC, who is redesignated as the Managing Director, APSRTC, is the appellant. The appeal is filed against the order and decree of the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati in O. P. 873/87 dated 14-8-1989. By the decree under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,99,600. 00. The amount of Rs. 15,000. 00, already paid under Sec. 92a of the Act, has been deducted from the total amount and the balance of Rs. 1,84,600 / - has been awarded to the claimants with costs and subsequent interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The claim came to be granted in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) ON 18-4-1987, at about 7-30 PM, one Shri Selvaraj was going on a bicycle with a pillion rider. At that time one RTC bus bearing No. AAZ 6252 alleged to have come at a high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the bicycle due to which Selvaraj fell down and died due to multiple injuries. His wife, three children and parents viz. , respondents 1 to 6 herein filed O. P. 873 of 1987 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs before the Tribunal. The defence of the appellant-Corporation was that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner but the deceased himself was coming in an ill-orderly fashion in a zigzag way, and that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased.

( 3 ) ON those pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1) Whether the deceased M. Selvaraj died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AAZ 6252 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount? 3) To what relief?

( 4 ) ON behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and exhibits A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-corporation, 3 witnesses i. e. , RWs. I to 3 were examined and exhibits B-1 to B-5 were marked. On considering the material placed before the Tribunal, it came to the conclusion that both the driver of the APSRTC bus as well as the deceased were at fault and recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence. According to the Tribunal, the driver was negligent to the extent of 60 per cent and the deceased was negligent to the extent of 40 per cent. It has further recorded a finding that having regard to the age of the deceased, the correct multiplier would be 15, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the annual income should be multiplied by 20 as the deceased was only 36 years old. The tribunal also determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500. 00 and deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards his personal expenses and the balance was treated as his contribution towards his family. Multiplying that amount with 20, the above said compensation was awarded.

( 5 ) SHRI Aga Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant, contends that having noted that the correct multiplier would be 15, the Tribunal gravely erred in choosing 20 as the multiplier and thus wrongly enhanced the compensation to which the respondents-claimants were not entitled to. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. M. , K. S. R. T. Corpn. Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 AIR SCW 1356 : AIR 1994 SC 1631, in support of his contention that multiplier method is the best method to determine the compensation in accident claims cases.

( 6 ) THERE can be no doubt that the multiplier method has been accepted as the best method available to arrive at a just and reasonable compensation in accidents claims cases. This has been accepted as the most scientific method. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in support of the proposition that the well established principle is multiplier . In the said judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document