JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the award dated 18-01-2002 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), passed in O.P.No. 390 of 1998.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the claimants before the Tribunal. They filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of death of one Buddha Gangu Naidu in a motor vehicle accident occurred on the intervening night of 08/09-02-1997.
3. As stated in the claim petition, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a seasonal employee in the Ankapalle Sugar Cooperative Society Limited, Thummapala, and earning an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. On the intervening night of 08/09-02-97, when the deceased was proceeding to Venkupalem Village from Satyanarayana Cinema Theatre, Anakapalle, a RTC bus bearing No. AP10 Z 2118 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased suffered grevious injuries and immediately, he was shifted to the Community Hospital, Anakapalle, where he was succumbed to injuries. It was the further case of the claimants that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In view of the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, they lost dependency. They claimed compensation on account of loss of dependency, loss of consortium and loss of estate etc.
4. The appellant-APSRTC contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal (sic. appellant), while disputing the allegations of the claim petition, mainly resisted the claim on the ground that as the claimant came from the right side by-lane suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, the accident occurred. It was the further case of the appellant that inasmuch as the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
5. With reference to the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident resulted in the death of the deceased Budda Gangunaidu has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing Registration No. AP10 Z 2118 by its driver, the first respondent?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for?
(3) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation and if so, to what quantum and which respondent?
(4) To what relief?
6. To prove the claim on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant was examined as P.W.1, the third claimant was examined as P.W.2 and the eyewitness was examined as P.W.3. On their behalf, Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.
7. The Tribunal while considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly, relying on the deposition of P. W.3, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving only on the part of the driver of the bus, which belongs to the appellant-Corporation, and then, proceeded to assess the compensation. Though it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as an employee in the Anakapalle Sugar Co-operative Society Limited, Thummapala, and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/-per month. Having regard to the age of the deceased as 52 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ’11’ to the earnings of the deceased, and assessed the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to the same, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,41,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum.
8. In this appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-corporation submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased, who came suddenly from a by-lane. In that view of the matter, the appellant-Corporation is not liable to pay compensation. He further submits that in spite of the evidence of the driver, who was examined as R.W.1, the Tribunal has erroneously recorded a finding that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that apart from the evidence under Exs.A-1 and A-2, it was categorically stated by P.W.3, who is an independent witness, that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal recorded a correct finding and awarded a just and reasonable compensation.
10. With reference to the above submissions in this case, it is seen that immediately after the accident, the complaint was lodged before the police and a case was registered in Crime No. 36 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the bus. Even in Ex.A-1, which was filed in the earlier point of time, it was stated that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have not witnessed the accident, P.W.3, who is an eyewitness, has categorically stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, he is an interested witness and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.3, who is an independent eye-witness. In that context, considering the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-2, the Tribunal had recorded a correct finding that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
11. Even with regard to quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/-per month but the Tribunal itself assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/-per month, has taken monthly contribution to the family at Rs. 1,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of ’11’ having regard to the age of the deceased as 52 years to the earnings of the deceased, awarded a just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. Thus, in all, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,500/- towards compensation.
12. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which warrants interference of this Court.
13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.