Sri Divakala Venkata Raghava Rao, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, was employed as Senior Assistant in the office of Padmanabham Mandai Parishad, East Godavari District. On 6-9-2000, he was proceeding to the SubTreasury Office at Bheemunipatnam, from his house, at 10 a.m. On the way, he was hit by a bus bearing No. A. P .-9Z -6035, belonging to the appellant, and driven by the 4th respondent.

Immediately he was shifted to the nearby hospital, but was declared dead. A case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the 4th respondent, in the concerned police station. .

2. Respondents 1 to 3 (for short "the respondents") filed MVOP No.1717 of 2000, in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a sum of Rs.B,70,0001- as compensation. They pleaded thatthe deceased was earning a salary of Rs.9,426/-, permonth, and that he was aged 54 years, by the time he died.

3. The 4th respondent remained ex parte. The matter was contested by the appellant alone. It put the respondents to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them. The allegation as

~

156

. Andhra Law 1

to the rashness and negligence, on the part of the driver, was denied. It was pleaded that, when the bus was negotiating a curve at Government Hospital, an auto rikshaw with number of passengers in it, came in a rash and negligent manner, and to avoid the same, the bus was swerved to the left, and in the process, the deceased died. Through order, dated 27-6-2002, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as claimed by the respondents, with interest at 9%, and apportioned the same among them. This appeal is directed against the said order.

4. Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal committed a serious error, in adopting the multiplier 11, though the deceased was found to be of the age of 54 years. She contends that the Tribunal was not justified in selecting the multiplier from Schedule-II, for short "the Schedule, of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short "the Act"), when the annual income of the deceased exceeded Rs. 40,000/-. She contends that the Tribunal had departed in all other respects from the Schedule, but relied upon it, only forthe purpose of multiplier. She also takes exception to the rate at which the interest was granted.

5. Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel forthe respondents, on the other hand, submits that the application ofthe Schedule is not restricted to any particular category of cases. He contends that when the formula contained in the schedule can be applied to the cases, "Yhere the claimants do not have to prove the negligence, there is no reason why it cannot be applied to cases, in which the negligence of the driver is proved. Placing reliance upon certain decided cases, he contends that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference.

6. On behalf of respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 - were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on behalfofthe appellant, and Ex.X -1 , true copy of the Service 2

imes Reports

[2007

Book of the deceased, was also taken on record.

7. The occurrence of he accident and the death of the deceased, on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the 4th respondent, are not seriously, at issue. The FIR, the report of the MotorVehicles Inspector, the Post-mortem certificate and Charge Sheet were filed as Exs.A-1 to A-4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to convince this Court that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, the plea cannot be accepted, in view of the clinching evidence on record.

8. The serious controversy in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 6-9-2000. The date of birth of the deceased was found to be 22-9-1945, and hlesis age, as on the date of accident, crossed 55 years. In the ordir:ary course,-1 he was due to retire from service, on 30-9-2003.nvin

9. There di~ not ex