Liability in motor vehicle accidents can be shared, and principles of assessing future prospects and multipliers for compensation must adhere to established guidelines.

1. Challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 in MVOP No. 676 of 2005 passed by the learned Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Nellore granting compensation of Rs. 48,58,400 against the claim of Rs. 70,00,000 for the death of one Thota Ramesh Babu in APSRTC bus accident, the respondent - APSRTC filed the instant appeal.

2. The matrix of the case is thus:
(a) The deceased was a Software Engineer working in Satyam Computer Services at Hyderabad. On 15.7.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a two - wheeler driven by his colleague Racharla Siva Prasad on Venkatagiri Cross Road No. 5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, the offending APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 - Z 1581 being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the two - wheeler from behind due to which the deceased who was the pillion rider fell down and the bus ran over him causing his instantaneous death. The two - wheeler struck in between bus and its front car (sic) and thereby the rider sustained injuries. It is contended that the accident occurred due to fault of bus driver and because of sudden demise of the deceased, his family members lost the fender (sic). On these pleas the petitioners who are the wife, minor children and father of the deceased filed OP No. 676 of 2005 and claimed Rs. 70,00,000 as compensation against the Managing Director, APSRTC. Respondent filed counter and opposed the claim petition mainly contending that there was no fault of the bus driver. It is contended that when the offending bus reached the accident spot, there was heavy rain and at that time, the rider of Kinetic Honda came in front of the bus from an adjacent road in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the same, the driver of the bus applied sudden brakes and the rider of the two - wheeler lost control over his vehicle and dashed the bus thereby the accident occurred. It is contended that there was no fault of the driver and hence the respondent is not liable for the claim of the petitioners. It is further contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.
(b) During trial, PW 1 to PW 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and Exhs. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of respondent, RW 1 was examined.
(c) The Tribunal having regard to the eyewitness account of PW 2, coupled with documentary evidence such as Exh. A1 - F.I.R., Exh. A2 - inquest report, Exh. A3 - post - mortem certificate, Exh. A4 - Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Exh. A5 - charge - sheet came to the conclusion that the bus driver was responsible for the accident. In the process, the Tribunal did not agree with the evidence of RW 1 who was the conductor of the bus. It also observed that admittedly RW 1 was issuing tickets at the time of accident and hence, there was no possibility for him to observe the manner of occurrence of the accident. Then, considering the evidence of PW 3 who is an officer in Satyam Computer Services and Exh. A6 - salary certificate and Exh. A7 - ID card issued by the employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 48,58,400 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum against the respondent as follows:

Hence, the appeal by APSRTC.

3. Claimants also filed cross - objections along with delay condonation petition which was allowed vide separate order and cross - objections were admitted. In the cross - objections, the claimants challenged the award on the ground that compensation was awarded for a paltry sum without having regard to the facts such as age, income and dependency of the claimants and also without reference to the