U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 in M.V.O.P. No. 676 of 2005 passed by learned Chairman, Principal Motor Accident 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 Sri 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. AP10Z-1581 being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner went and dashed behind the two wheeler, 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 and thereby the rider sustained injuries. It is contended that the accident was occurred due to fault of bus driver and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, his family members lost fender. On these pleas the petitioners who are the wife, minor children and father of the deceased filed O.P. No. 676/2005 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 when the offending bus reached the accident spot, there was heavy rain and at that time, the rider of the 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 motor cycle lost control over his vehicle and dashed the bus thereby the accident was 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, P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of respondent, RW1 was examined.

(c) The Tribunal having regard to the eye witness account of P.W. 2, coupled with documentary evidence such as Ex. A1-FIR, Ex. A2-Inquest report, Ex. A3-post-mortem certificate, Ex. A4-Motor Vehicles Inspector's report and Ex. A5-Charge Sheet came to conclusion that the bus driver was responsible for the accident. In the process, the Tribunal did not agree with the evidence of RW1 who was the conductor of the bus. It also observed that admittedly RW1 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 P.W. 3 who is the officer in Satyam Computers and Ex. A6 salary certificate and Ex. A7-ID card issued by the employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 48,58,400 with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. against the respondent as follows:

Hence, the appeal by the 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 guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, VII (2017) SLT 707 : IV (2017) ACC 460 (SC) [LQ/SC/2017/343] : AIR 2017 SC 5157 [LQ/SC/2017/1578] . It is contended that the Tribunal has not included any amount to the salary of the deceased towards future prospects. It is also contended that the multiplier selected by the Tribunal was not correct and thereby compensation for loss of dependency was drastically reduced. It is further contended that compensation granted under other heads such as loss of consortium, funeral expenses was also a pittance which is required to be enhanced suitably.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri Aravala Rama Rao, Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Koppula Gopal, Counsel for claimants/cross-objections.

5. Severely criticising the order of the Tribunal resting responsibility entirely on the bus driver, learned Counsel for the appellant Sri A. Rama Rao argued that the fault in fact lay with the rider of the Kinetic Honda as he suddenly came from a side lane on to the main road, i.e., accident spot without giving any caution and though the driver of the bus tried his best to stop the bus, the two wheeler went and dashed the bus and thereby the accident was occurred. Learned Counsel strenuously argued that the place of accident was admittedly a busy locality and it was raining at the time of accident. As such it was not possible for the driver of any vehicle to drive the vehicle at high speed at the place of accident. Therefore, the allegation of the claimants that the bus driver drove the bus at high speed and went behind the Kinetic Honda and hit the same twice or thrice and caused the accident is a concoction and beyond the pale of truth. The Tribunal woefully failed to consider the factual background relating to the accident and went by the documentary evidence relating to the criminal case and also the interested evidence of P.W. 2, who is the colleague of the deceased and erroneously held as if the bus driver was at fault. Learned Counsel thus at the first instance argued to set aside the award of the lower Tribunal holding that the bus driver was innocent. He alternatively argued that this Court may hold that the rider of the Kinetic Honda is also guilty of contributory negligence.

Nextly he argued that the Tribunal erred in applying a high multiplier of '14.4' without any plausible evidence showing the age of the deceased. He further argued that the Tribunal committed serious error in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 39,916. He thus prayed to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants Mr. Koppula Gopal argued that Ex. A1-FIR, Ex. A5-charge sheet coupled with the evidence of P.W. 2, who is an eye witness, clearly depict that the bus went behind the Kinetic Honda at high speed and dashed it causing the accident. That being the fact relating to the accident, the fault cannot be attributed to the rider of the Kinetic Honda. He further argued that the lower Tribunal rightly rejected the evidence of bus conductor as he is an interested witness and he was issuing tickets at the relevant time and therefore, he had no occasion to watch the accident. Nextly, learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal has not added any amount to the salary of the deceased towards future prospects and thereby the compensation was drastically reduced. Further, the multiplier selected by the Tribunal was also not in accordance with the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross objections.

7. The point for consideration is whether the award passed by the lower Tribunal is factually and legally sustainable or needs reconsideration

8. Point: So far as the cause of accident is concerned, according to the claimants, the bus driver went behind the Kinetic Honda and dashed and thereby the deceased who was the pillion rider, fell down and bus ran over him and the rider also fell down and suffered injuries. However, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that when the bus reached the accident spot, i.e., Venkatagiri Cross roads, it was raining heavily and at that time the Kinetic Honda suddenly came in front of the bus from adjacent road being driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and on seeing the same the bus driver applied sudden brakes, but the rider of the two wheeler lost control and dashed the bus and thereby the accident was occurred. The claimants in order to establish their version examined P.W. 2, whereas the APSRTC examined its conductor as RW1. The Tribunal accepted the version of the claimants placing reliance on the oral evidence of P.W. 2 and other documentary evidence and discarded the evidence of RW1 as he admitted that the time of accident he was issuing tickets to the passengers of the bus.

9. We gave our anxious consideration to know whether the finding of the lower Tribunal was correct. Admittedly the accident was occurred near Venkatagiri Cross roads in the night time at about 17.30 hours. P.W. 2, who is said to be an eye witness, admitted in the cross-examination that the accident spot is a busy locality. Of course he denied the suggestion that for that reason, there was no chance to drive the bus speedily. However, his denial is not be all and end all of the issue as it is a common sense that in a busy locality it will be difficult for any driver to drive a vehicle at high speed. Besides, as per the version of RW1, at the time of accident it was raining heavily, which fact is not controverted. So, in this backdrop, we cannot accept the plea of the claimants that the bus driver drove the bus at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Then the inevitable question that would arise is, if the bus driver was not driving the vehicle at high speed, what made him to hit behind the Kinetic Honda. This must be obviously for the reason that the two wheeler must have suddenly appeared in front of the bus by coming from a side lane as stated by RW1 in his evidence. As otherwise, there was no occasion for the bus driver to hit the Kinetic Honda on its backside. This is the only logical conclusion that can be deduced from the admitted facts and acceptable evidence of either side.

(a) So, on a conspectus of the facts and evidence, we hold that the rider of Kinetic Honda too contributed for the accident. Accordingly, we fix the liability between bus driver and the rider of the Kinetic Honda in the ratio 75:25.

(b) Then we examined compensation awarded under different heads. So far as compensation for loss of dependency is concerned, though lower Tribunal has correctly arrived at the net monthly income of the deceased after deduction of tax at Rs. 41,490, however it committed error in adding suitable amount to his net salary towards future prospects. The lower Tribunal added minuscule towards future prospects to his net monthly salary of Rs. 41,490 and rounded it off to Rs. 42,000. Thus, the addition towards future prospects is almost a negligible sum which is against the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) : VI (2009) SLT 663 : 162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC) case and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (supra) case. In Pranay Sethi's (supra) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased should be made towards future prospects if the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years. In the instant case, admittedly the deceased was aged about 36 years, so 50% of the net salary should be added towards future prospects. In such an event, the salary plus future prospects would come to Rs. 62,235 [Rs. 41,490 + Rs. 20,745]. As the number of dependants of deceased are 4, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure. So, the net monthly contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs. 46,676 (62,235 x 3/4). The annual contribution of the deceased which serves the purpose as multiplicand comes to Rs. 5,60,112 (46,676 X 12).

(c) Then the selection of multiplier is concerned, having regard to the age of deceased as 36 years, the suitable multiplier will be 15 as mentioned in the table provided in Sarla Verma's (supra) case. Thus the compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs. 84,01,680 (Rs. 5,60,112 X 15).

(d) In our view, the compensation awarded under other heads was reasonable and needs no interference. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is as follows:

Since the liability of the driver of APSRTC was held to be 75%, the appellant/APSRTC is liable to pay only Rs. 63,16,260 (Rs. 84,21,680 x 75/100).

10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. No. 302 of 2010 filed by the appellant/APSRTC and the cross objections filed by the claimants are disposed of with the following directions:

Compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 48,58,400 to Rs. 63,16,260 with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization on the original compensation amount of Rs. 48,58,400 only. The claimants are not entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation. The appellant/APSRTC shall deposit the compensation amount, costs and interest within two (2) months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against it by claimants.

Pa As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.