COMMON JUDGMENT:

The RTC as well as the claimants are aggrieved by the award and judgment dated 10.09.2008 passed in O.P.No.576 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karimnagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) filed these two appeals. The claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2126 of 2011 and RTC filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1252 of 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2003 the deceased, who was working as Sub Treasury Officer, and his colleague K.Hariprasad, who is junior assistant in the same office, in order to go back to the office, meanwhile near Raja Rani wine shop, one RTC bus driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased from its back side, as a result, the deceased and rider i.e., K.Hariprasad fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and while he was shifting to Government Hospital, Karimnagar, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. RTC filed counter denying the material averments in t he petition. It is contended that on the date of accident, respondent No.1 was on duty as driver and he was proceeding from Karimnagar to Godavarikhani with normal speed due to heavy traffic and when the bus reached near Raja Rani Wines, all of a sudden one motor cyclist came behind the bus and tried to overtake the bus with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against road divider and fell down on the road. Respondent No.1 stopped the bus immediately. There is no negligent on the part of respondent No.1. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle.

4. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of RTC, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

5. The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence held that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and awarded an amount of Rs.6,87,727/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the RTC, submits that the Tribunal went wrong in coming to conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal ought to have held that both the rider of the vehicle and the driver of the bus are equally responsible for the said accident and fixed the contributory negligence. Except appreciating Ex.A.1-copy of the FIR and Ex.A.5-attested copy of the charge sheet, which are not conclusive proof, it was held that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. Further, it is stated that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.11,626/- per month and the Tribunal has failed to deduct the income tax. It is submitted that awarding an amount of Rs.6,78,727/- is excessive.

7. Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that the Tribunal has not granted the just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. He submits that the oral and documentary evidence was available showing that the deceased was a qualified person and having scope of getting promotion as District Treas ury Officer and salary should have been increased at Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal gravely erred in taking the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.11,600/-. He further submits that when the age of the deceased was 51 years, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 6.99 and the appropriate multiplier is 11 between the age group of 51 and 55. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum only instead of 18% per annum.

8. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.

9. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Sub Treasury Officer in the office of the District Treasury Office, Karimnagar and was drawing an amount o