JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation challenging order and decree dated 29.03.2019 passed in O.P. No. 261 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,84,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased- Balu, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/TSRTC argued that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the RTC bus solely responsible for the accident. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle and failed to observe the oncoming bus. It is further argued that the income of Rs.15,000/- per month fixed for an unemployed B.Tech graduate is excessive and that the addition of 40% future prospects is not warranted in the absence of stable employment.

3. No representation for the respondents.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 16.01.2016 when the RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2583 hit the motorcycle of the deceased. To prove the negligence, the claimant examined PW.2, an eyewitness, who clearly deposed that the driver of the bus was driving at high speed and hit the motorcycle. Although the Corporation pleaded contributory negligence, no evidence was adduced by them nor the driver of the bus (Respondent No.2) was examined to rebut the testimony of PW.2. The police also filed a charge sheet against the bus driver under Section 304-A of IPC. In view of the same, the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of rash and negligent driving does not require any interference.

5. Sofaras as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly assessed the evidence regarding the age and qualifications of the deceased-Balu. The material on record, specifically Ex.A6, establishes that the deceased was a B.Tech graduate in Electronics & Communications Engineering from JNTU, Hyderabad, and was pursuing his M.Tech at the time of the accident. While the appellant- Corporation contended that the monthly income of Rs.15,000/- was excessive for an unemployed individual, this Court finds that for a technical degree holder with bright future prospects, such a notional income is reasonable. In accordance with the constitutional Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi¹AIR 2017 SC 5157, the Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects, as the deceased was below the age of 40. After applying 10% deduction for income tax and 50% deduction for personal expenses as a bachelor, the net monthly income was determined at Rs.8,400/-. Given the age of the deceased was 24 years, the appropriate multiplier of '18' was employed, resulting in Rs.18,14,400/- towards loss of dependency. Furthermore, the awarding of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, is reasonable. Consequently, the total compensation of Rs.18,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not require any modification. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.