Sri Chagantipati Venkateswara Rao, was employed as Head Constable, and was working in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.

On 13-5-1995, when he was proceeding on his Moped (Lune), bearing No.AP-16-8456 from Bandar Locks to Krishnalanka Police Station, a bus bearing No.AP-9Z 3591, owned by the APSRTC, is said to have hit the Moped from behind. Venkateswara Rao died on account of the injuries received by him. Crime NoJ4 of 1995 was registered against the driver of the bus, by the II Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada.

The wife and three minor children of late Venkateswra Rao filed M.V.O.P.No.297 of 1995 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-claim-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation. Through its order dated 17-10-2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs3,93,824/-, and apportioned the same among the respondents/ claimants.

2. APSRTC, the appellant, filed this appeal, assailing the order passed by the Tribunal. The claimants/respondents filed cross-objections, seeking enhancement.

3. Sri V. T.M Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred solely on account of the carelessness on the part of the deceased, and the Tribunal had brushed aside the evidence of R W -1, the driver of the bus, without any basis. He contends that the evidence of PW -2 is doubtful and that it ought not to have been accepted.

Learned Counsel assails the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest.

According to him, the net salary, not the gross salary, ought to have been taken into account.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects of the deceased, and the probable rise in emoluments etc. ought to have constituted the basis for computation of the compensation.

5. A serious objection is raised by the appellants, for the finding recorded by the Tribunal, on issue No.1, which related to the cause of accident. On their behalf, the respondents examined PW -2, who is said to be an eye-witness. He stated that he is running a scooter mechanic shop, just opposite to the Bandar Locks, and that he has seen the APSRTC bus, hitting the Moped from behind, since the accident occurred right in front of his shop. The appellants took objection in the evidence of PW-2, by stating that no record was produced, to prove that he was running a mechanic shop at the said place. The nature of activity undertaken by PW-2 was such that, it does not entail maintenance of any records. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that PW-2 did not run any mechanic shop, at all.

6. Another effort made by the appellants in this direction was, by examining R W -1, the driver of the bus. This witness, no doubt, stated that he crossed the Moped, by maintaining the distance of 5 to 6 feet, and he heard the cries only after crossing the Moped. This, however, is a statement of the person, who is accused of, causing the accident. Unless it is corroborated by an independent witness, it cannot be taken, on its face value. The Tribunal took into account the contents of Ex.A-1, the F.I.R; Ex.A-2, the M.V.I. report, and came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated with the said documents. This Court is not inclined to take any different view.

7. As regards the computation of compensation, it is no doubt true, that wherever the injured or deceased is a salaried employee, his net income, and not the gross income, must be taken into account. In the instant case, the deceased was employed as Head Constable, and Ex.A-4, the pay certificate, discloses that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,842/-. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the loss of dependency, by adopting the said figure after deducting 1/3rd, towards personal expenses of the deceased.

8. Viewed in isolation, this may appear to be an improper exercise. The Supreme Court held in umber of cases, including General M