M.A.C.M.A.No.2289 of 2012

The Court made the following JUDGEMENT:

1. The Appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 25.02.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.767 of 2002, assailing the quantum of compensation.

I. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,900/- merely on the basis of the salary certificate without examining any competent authority from the concerned college to prove the salary certificate. That the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of ‘15’, according to the learned counsel, the age of the deceased was 42 years and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’, and prayed for modification of the award by reducing the quantum of compensation for the aforesaid reasons.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,900/- per month. The Tribunal rightly relied on the evidence of PW3, who was working as an Office Assistant in the College, and who deposed on the aspects of employment, income of the deceased, service and salary certificates.

4. The learned counsel for the Claimants fairly submits that, having regard to the age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier is ‘14’.

5. The learned counsel further contended that, though the Claimants have not preferred any Appeal or Cross Objection, this Court, for determining just compensation, is empowered to correct an error committed by the Tribunal and to award just compensation in accordance with law, and submits that the Claimants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%, considering the permanent nature of the employment of the deceased. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the Claimants are four in number and, therefore, only 1/4th ought to have been deducted under that head, and prayed to enhance the compensation.

II. ANALYSIS:

6. The case of the Claimants is that they are the mother, wife, son and daughter of Vellanki Venkateswara Rao/deceased. That on 24.11.2001, the said Venkateswara Rao was proceeding on his bicycle, near Brother’s Ice Parlour, Benz Circle, when the Respondent No.1 drove the offending APSRTC Bus/ AP 9 Z 3883 in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed it against the said bicycle on its back, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. In this regard, Crime No.581 of 2001 was registered against the Respondent No.1. The Claim is filed for Rs.7,10,000/-.

7. The 1st Respondent did not file counter. The 2nd Respondent filed counter denying the material averments of the Claim Petition, including the manner of the accident and the negligent driving of the 1st Respondent. Also pleaded that there was no rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent, but the negligent riding of the bicycle by the said Venkateswara Rao/deceased was the cause for the accident, that they are not liable to pay compensation, and prayed to dismiss the Claim.

8. As the case is not settled, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the deceased died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending crime vehicle by the 1st Respondent?

2. What is the age and income of the deceased on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

9. In the Tribunal, the Claimants examined the evidence of PW.1 to 3, PW.1: V.N.S.Lakshmi, PW.2: K. Narasimha Rao, PW.3: S.D.N.V. Vikram, exhibited A1 to A7/Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3- P.M.Report, Ex.A4- M.V.I. Report, Ex.A5-Charge Sheet, Ex.A6- Service Certificate, Ex.A7-Salary Certificate and Ex.X1-Service Certificate, Ex.X2-Sa