S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) IN a collision that took place on 15-7-1983 at 7. 45 p. m. , between the bus bearing No. APZ 8566 belonging to A. P. S. R. T. C. (for short the RTC ) and a car bearing No. AAC. 8114, the driver of the car died instantaneously. He was aged 24 years, unmarried and left behind him his elder brother aged 30 years and elder widowed-sister aged 34 years. The brother and sister of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (Rs. 85,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000. 00 towards loss of expectation of life and Rs. 5,000. 00 towards mental agony, grief and suffering) alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC. The RTC opposed the claim denying rash and negligent driving by its driver. The RTC also contested that the claimants being neither dependents nor the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to compensation. It has also challenged the amount claimed as excessive.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus and awarded Rs. 95,000. 00 towards loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of dependency. Against this, the RTC has preferred this appeal. Though many contentions are raised in the grounds of appeal, Mr. I. Aga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for RTC, pressed only two contentions namely that the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation and that in any event, as the dependants are elder than deceased, the Tribunal erred in fixing multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased.

( 3 ) THE contention that the brother and sister of the deceased are not entitled 10 file the claim petition has no substance in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Ahmedabad v. Ramabhai Prabhatbhai 1987 Ace CJ 561 : (AIR 1987 SC 1690) that under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, all the legal representatives are entitled to file claim petition before the Motor Accidents Tribunal. In this case, as the deceased died intestate, unmarried, leaving behind him. only his brother and sister, they being heirs are entitled to claim compensation. As regards loss to the estate, the legal representatives are entitled to compensation in accordance with the shares, they are entitled to under their Personal Law. But, so far as the loss of dependency is concerned, they will be entitled to compensation only if they are dependents and not otherwise. (Md. Abdul Wahab v. Setwin 1988 Ace CJ 743 (Andh Pra ). In the instant case, the claimants deposed that the deceased was living together with them and was supporting them and their families. Hence, the respondents are entitled to claim compensation both as regards loss to the estate and loss of dependency.

( 4 ) AS regards general non-pecuniary damages under the head of pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life and amenities of life, as held by Justice Jagannadha Rao, U. in Yerra Varalakhshmi v. M. Nageswara Rao 1988 Acc CJ 354 (Andh Pra), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Nirmala Narsava v. Vilas Ramachandra Shangde 1989 Acc CJ 715 : (AIR 1990 AP 33) (Andh Pra), a minimum conventional sum of Rs. 7,500. 00has to be given under each head, irrespective of status, income or age of the deceased and even in the case of instantaneous death. This amount was awarded in the case of accident that took place in 1981. As the accident in the present case occurred in 1983, the respondent is entitled to Rs. 15,000. 00 under these heads.

( 5 ) COMING to the loss of future earnings, it has been recently held by the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas, (1994) 1 ALT (SC) 1 : (AIR 1994 SC 1631) that taking multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased at the time of death will be reasonable and scientific method of assessing compensation instead of multiplying by the number of years the deceased would have probably lived and deduc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document