P.L.N Sarma, J.:— This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) questioning the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore in O.P No. 493 of 1988 granting a compensation of Rs. 5,72,000/- for the loss of dependency, and other items which will be referred to in detail hereinafter.

2. O.P No. 493 of 1988 was filed by the claimants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- due to the death of one Gali Janardhana Rao. The first claimant is the widow, claimants 2 and 3 are the minor daughters aged about 11 and 8 years respectively and the fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased Gali Janardhana Rao. It is stated that the fourth claimant gave up her claim in favour of claimants 1 to 3. The deceased was working as an Agricultural Development Officer, Divisional Office, Syndicate Bank, Nellore. On 22-9-1988 at 7.00 p.m at Nippo Factory, Dargamitta, Nellore, the deceased met with an accident. It is stated that while the deceased Gali Janardhana Rao was proceeding on a scooter bearing No. AAN 4888 belonging to the Syndicate Bank near Nippo Factory, the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No. AAZ 8628 belonging to “the Corporation” came from behind at high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter from behind causing grievous injuries to the deceased besides causing extensive damage to the scooter. The deceased was admitted in Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore and had to be taken to Madras on the advice of the Headquarters Hospital authorities. He was admitted in Guest Hospital, Ponnamalli High Road, Madras. Ultimately, in spite of the treatment given to him, he died at 1.00 a.m, on 27-9-1988 in the Guest Hospital, Madras and the dead body was brought back from Madras in a private ambulance to Nellore. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 30,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium to the first claimant, Rs. 9,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 1,000/- for loss of wrist watch, Rs. 500/- for damage to clothing, Rs. 2,000/- for expenses of attenders, Rs. 500/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 2,000/- for transport charges for transporting the dead body from Madras to Nellore.

3. The application was resisted by “the Corporation” mainly on the ground that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. The deceased had to apply sudden brakes to the scooter as the driver of a private bus proceeding before him had applied sudden brakes, as a result of which the petitioner (sic. deceased) dashed against it and fell down and sustained injuries leading to his death. They also contested the quantum of compensation claimed on different heads.

4. The first claimant examined herself as P.W 1, the fourth claimant examined herself as P.W 2 and an independent witness was examined as P.W 3 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-8 on their behalf.

5. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, R.W 1 the driver of the bus bearing No. AAZ 8628 involved in the accident, was examined and Ex. B-1 was marked.

6. On a consideration of the entire material placed before him, the learned Judge granted a sum of Rs. 5,72,000/- as compensation for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal below has also granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses incurred and Rs. 2,000/- towards transport charges for the transportation of the deceased from Nellore to Madras and from Madras to Nellore. The Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering.

7. Assailing the order of the Tribunal below, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by “the Corporation”.

8. Though Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Corporation sought to challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No. AAZ 8628 by its driver, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the same. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W 3 who is an independent eye-witness to the accident, to the effect that the R.T.C bus came behind in a high speed rashly without blowing the horn and dashed against the scooter as a result the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. P.W 3 himself gave the report to the Police regarding the accident. We have no hesitation to accept the same and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C bus AAZ 8628.

9. One of the main objections raised by Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, Counsel for the Corporation is that multiplicand has not been properly fixed by the Tribunal below. Practically, entire amount of the salary indicated by the salary certificate (Ex. A-6 dated 21-10-1988) was taken into consideration and treated as the loss of dependency per month and applying the multiplier 14, granted a total sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- under the said head. This, according to the learned Counsel is not sustainable for the reason that the Tribunal below is bound to deduct ⅓rd amount from out of the salary towards his personal living expenses i.e, the amount which the deceased would have spent every month on himself. According to the learned Counsel, this ⅓rd amount has not been deducted while arriving at the multiplicand. The learned Counsel also stated that the proper multiplier to be applied is 14 only and therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal below cannot be sustained.

10. On the other hand, Sri K. Niladri Raju, Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, contended that the salary certificate does not indicate the correct emoluments receivable by the deceased. The salary according to the revised scales of pay (Ex. A-8), as are made applicable to the deceased by the date of his death, indicates that the deceased would have been receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 4,258.60 ps. if he were to be alive, and that is the amount which will have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplicand. Ex. A-8 is the certificate issued by the Divisional Office, Syndicate Bank, Nellore dt. 27-9-1989. This certificate states that the old scales of pay have been revised and the new scales of pay are also indicated in it. The deceased Gali Janardhana Rao's new scale of pay is indicated as Rs. 3,420/- (Basic) and Rs. 838.60 ps. as dearness allowance. These revised scales of pay are made applicable and have come into effect from 1st November, 1987. As on the date of the accident as well as on the date of death of the deceased, he was entitled and eligible for the new scales of pay. Having regard to this certificate, we are of the opinion that the multiplicand will have to be estimated taking into consideration the new scales of pay which he would have got with arrears, but for his death. If the said new scales of pay are taken into consideration, the amount which he would have drawn will come to Rs. 4,258.60 ps. rounded of to Rs. 4,258/- per month. From this amount, we have to necessarily deduct ⅓rd amount towards personal living expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself. When so deducted, the amount of loss of dependency per month comes to Rs. 2,840/-. Per annum it comes to Rs. 34,080/-. This is the multiplicand arrived at per annum. The deceased as on the date of the accident was aged about 36 years. The relevant multiplier will be 14. If the multiplicand is multiplied by the multiplier 14, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,77,120/-. This is the amount referable to the loss of dependency which the claimants are entitled to. The tribunal below is not right in granting a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- under the above head. The said sum was arrived at without reference to the deduction towards personal living expenses i.e, ⅓rd from the salary per month. Therefore, to this extent, the judgment of the lower Tribunal has to be modified and an amount of Rs. 4,77,120/- is fixed as the loss of dependency to the claimants which they are entitled to.

11. It is next contended by Sri Gangirami Reddy, Counsel appearing for the Corporation that granting of funeral expenses by the Tribunal is not sustainble as it is not permissible under law. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajkamal Transport, Hyderabad v. C. Sugnna Devi . 1989 ACJ 730 A.P. The learned Judges in that judgment held as under:

“……As there is no statutory provision in India, we feel that no amount can be awarded towards funeral expenses.”

12. Having regard to this judgment, we are of the opinion that granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses by the Tribunal below is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside.

13. It is then contended by the learned Counsel for “The Corporation” that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- granted under the head of pain and suffering is also not sustainable having regard to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. Ch. Narasavva . AIR 1987 A.P 127. It is held in the said judgment that there is no question of granting any compensation for pain and suffering of the dependents in fatal accident cases. Having regard to the Full Bench judgment, the order of the Tribunal below granting a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering on the part of the dependents is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. It is contended by Sri K. Niladri Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, that only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- is granted by the Tribunal below as loss of consortium to the first claimant. The learned Counsel drew our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas . 1994 2 SCC 176. In the said judgment, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held as under:

“……the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of estate each in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/-.”

14. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal below for the loss of consortium at Rs. 10,000/- is increased to Rs. 15,000/- and the same is accordingly granted. Similarly, the compensation for the loss of estate is also fixed at Rs. 15,000/- having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra. Even though this was not specifically claimed by the claimants, the said amount is allowable under the said head, provided the total compensation awarded by this Court does not exceed the compensation granted by the Tribunal below. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the respondents-claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.

15. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal below is modified and the following amounts are granted as compensation to the claimants under different heads:

1. Loss of dependency to the claimants …. Rs. 4,77,120-00 2. Loss of consortium … Rs. 15,000-00 3. Medical expenses … Rs. 5,000-00 4. Transport charges from Nellore to Madras and from Madras to Nellore … Rs. 2,000-00 5. Loss of estate … Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs. 5,14,120-00

16. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 5,14,120/- (Rupees five lakhs, fourteen thousand and one hundred and twenty only) is granted towards compensation under the above heads of the claimants. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal below is reasonable and the same is confirmed.

17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. There shall be no order as to costs.