( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 who are the widow and children of P. Raghu (the deceased) who died due to a collision between the auto rickshaw being driven by him and a bus belonging to the appellant, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of rs. 7,39,500/- from the appellant and 5th respondent, the driver of the bus involved in accident, alleging that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent and examined two witnesses on their behalf as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked exhibits A-1 to A-8 on their behalf. 5th respondent i. e. the driver of the bus involved in the accident chose to remain ex parte. Appellant filed a counter contesting the claim of respondents, but did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary on its behalf. The tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by fifth respondent awarded Rs. 5,33,160/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 4. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the first respondent before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum claimants prefered cross-objections. ( 2 ) THE points for consideration are: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 5th respondent? (2) To what amount are the respondents entitled? point No. 1. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 2 and in view of Ex. A-3, sketch of the scene of accident/ which shows that the accident took place on the wrong side of the road in the direction in which the bus was proceeding, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent. Since in ex. A-5, charge sheet filed by police against the 5th respondent shows that P. W. 2 was cited as a witness to the accident it can prima facie be taken that P. W. 2 was a witness to the accident. But the evidence of P. W. 2 that he and the deceased started from Golkonda chowrastha in two autos before the accident cannot be true, because in Ex. But the evidence of P. W. 2 that he and the deceased started from Golkonda chowrastha in two autos before the accident cannot be true, because in Ex. A-1 (FIR issued in connection with the accident) the complainant alleged that she and her mother and others boarded the auto rickshaw at gandhi Nagar center and were proceeding to Maredapalli and that the accident occurred on the way at Boiguda railway quarters near padmarao Nagar. So it is prima facie clear that p. W. 2 is a planted witness. Be that as it may, since Ex. A-3, sketch of the scene of accident, shows that the bus went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto, which was proceeding on the correct side, it is prima fade clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 5th respondent. Though there is prima facie evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 5th respondent the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, appellant did not think it fit to examine the 5th respondent, to speak about the facts and circumstances leading to the accident. So, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant and so the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent, cannot be said to be erroneous, and so hold that the accident involving the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant, by the 5th respondent. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. II ( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence of P. W. 2, the tribunal held that the average earnings of the deceased were Rs. 150/- per day and took the contribution of the deceased to respondents 1 to 4 at Rs. 3,000/- p. m. arrived at the pecuniary damages as Rs. 5,33,160/ -. While considering point No. 1, I held that p. W. 2 must have been planted as a witness to the accident and so it is prima facie clear that P. W. 2 is a witness interested in respondents 1 to 4. So he naturally would inflate the income of the deceased, to enable respondents 1 to 4 obtaining higher compensation for the death of the deceased. So he naturally would inflate the income of the deceased, to enable respondents 1 to 4 obtaining higher compensation for the death of the deceased. ( 5 ) AS per Rule 268 of A. P. Motor Vehicle rules, 1989 an owner of an auto rickshaw has to maintain a record sheet in duplicate in form RSA which contains the names of the drivers and their addresses and the trips made. That record in Form RSA is not produced by respondents 1 to 4. So it is clear that the deceased was not the owner of the auto, which he was driving. Obviously, he must have taken the auto from its owner for hire and so he has to pay hire charges to the owner of the auto and would also have to meet the petrol and oil charges. Had respondents 1 to 4 taken steps for production of the Form RSA the trips made by the deceased would have been known. Since respondents 1 to 4 did not take steps for production of the relevant record and since the accident occurred in 1996, the net average earnings of the deceased can be taken as around Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month and so his contribution to the respondents can be taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 24,000/- per annum. ( 6 ) SINCE the Post Mortem examination report of the deceased shows that he was aged about 35 years, the multiplier as per bhgavan Das v. Mohd. Arif, would be 14. 81, but the multiplier can be taken as 16. So the pecuniary damages payable to respondents 1 to 4 would come to Rs. 24,000/- X 16 = 3,84,000/ -. ( 7 ) IN Y. Varalakshmi v. M. Nageswara Rao, it is held that in every case of a fatal accident, a minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should be awarded to the claimants, towards non pecuniary damages such as loss of estate, pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life etc. . Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 1996 i. e. about a decade after the rendition of that decision, and the age and the earnings the deceased would have earned in future, the non pecuniary damages can be fixed at Rs. 50,000/ -. . Keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 1996 i. e. about a decade after the rendition of that decision, and the age and the earnings the deceased would have earned in future, the non pecuniary damages can be fixed at Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 8 ) AS held in General Manager, Kerala State road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas i and others, first respondent is entitled to rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. ( 9 ) THUS respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to rs. 3,84,000/- + 50,000/- + 15,000/- = 4,49,000/-, which can be rounded of to rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The point is answered accordingly. ( 10 ) IN the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for rs. 4,50,000/- in favour of respondents, against the appellant, with interest at 9% p. a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. The rest of the claim of respondents 1 to 4 and the cross objections are dismissed, without costs. From out of the said amount, respondents 2 to 4 are each entitled to Rs. 1,08,750/- and interest thereon and the first respondent is entitled to rs. 1,23,750/- and interest thereon. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.