The court established that compensation must reflect the deceased's true earning capacity, deducing correct income and applying established multipliers in line with relevant precedents.

JUDGMENT:

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (for short ‘the MV Act’) by the claimants aggrieved by the award dated 18.09.2019 passed in MVOP.No.767 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. It is stated in the claim petition that on 28.08.2015 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased T. Radhakrishna was crossing the road at Madina Stone Shop opposite to Anuradha Timber Depot, at that time the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-4570 drove the vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed him due to which he sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment, where he died at 23.30 hours. On the complaint, PS Bowenpally has registered a case in Crime No.309/2015 under Section 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the said bus. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 49 years and was hale and healthy, working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. On account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners were deprived of the contribution apart from love and affection and prayed to grant Rs.10 lakhs as compensation.

3. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter stating that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and denied the age, avocation and earning of the deceased and further stated that no accident has taken place as alleged by the claimant and corporation is not liable to pay the amount.

5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TSRTC No. AP11 - Z - 4570 as contended by the petitioners?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?

iii) To what relief?

6. The Tribunal has held that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claim petitioners. The Tribunal has taken the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and added 25% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others , [(2017) 6 SCC 680] and deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier ‘13’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 2 ACJ 1298 and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,85,000/- towards loss of dependency and in total awarded Rs.6,55,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally with interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with costs and interest.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards compensation and failed to accept the income of the deceased as he was working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to award consortium to appellant No.2 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others ,(2018) 18 SCC 130 = 2018 ACJ 2782 SC. The Tribunal failed to award transportation charges, extra nourishment and interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum and relied on the decision in Sagunthala and