JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are the outcome of same order of the Tribunal and hence taken up at request of both sides for common disposal. 2. These two appeals one filed by the claimants and the other is by the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short, Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.1147 of 2003 dated 17.10.2005, awarding compensation of Rs.4,89,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the claim of the claimants of Rs.6,00,000/- in the claim petition under Sections 163-A & 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). 3. Heard Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri V.T.M. Prasad the learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as claimants and insurance company for the sake of convenience in all the appeals. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low and prayed to allow their appeal and to dismiss the appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Whereas it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. that the quantum of compensation is highly excessive and that there is a contributory negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in not considering the same and prayed to allow their appeal and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the both sides in these two appeals reiterated the same. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just, if so, what is the just compensation the claimants are entitled in view of the rival contentions disputing the same? 2. To what result? POINT No.1: 6. The fact that on the fateful day, the deceased while reversing his bike by taking out from the parking place dashed to the left side portion of the bus from which he fell down with the vehicle and the back wheels of the vehicle run over him and died due to the multiple injuries covered by Ex.P-4 post mortem report not in dispute and Ex.A-1 F.I.R and Ex.A-2 charge sheet pointing out against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus. In fact from the very facts stated supra of the claim petition as well as the evidence of P.W-1 with reference to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and of P.W-2 so called eye witness, it indications based on the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitor’ that from the things itself speak, composite negligence of deceased. As had the deceased while taking out from the parking place noticed and restrained till passing of the bus instead of taking out in haste in that course from which come in contact with left side portion of the bus that was the result of the accident speaking said composite negligence of the deceased. The evidence of P.W-2 is also substantiating said conclusion that was not noticed by the Tribunal, but for influenced simply by the F.I.R and charge sheet against the driver of the R.T.C bus. No doubt from the manner of the crush injury sustained by the injured under the back wheels of the bus, contributory negligence on the part of the bus driver is more as had he be slow and not in a rash and negligent manner driving, his bus driving could not run over the deceased under the back wheels. It clearly speaks there from that atleast 25% of the contributory negligence of the deceased is there for causing the accident and the remaining 75% is of the bus driver. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation as per the evidence of P.W-3 coupled with Ex.X-1 he was running Anuradha Tours and Travels, that was the registration of the entity dated 11.11.2002. However, there from saying the deceased was working under him or he was paying Rs.5,000/- towards salary there is no other record except a stray sentence in a paper known as salary certificate and he admitted that he could not produce any record like payment vouchers or accounts muchless there is anything showing of him under the Minimum Wages Act or Payment of Wages Act or under Shops and Establishments Act when he is a regular employee and paying Rs.5,000/- per month. Thereby the Tribunal was right in not taken into consideration the payment of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal believed that the deceased was working in the Tours and Travels of P.W-3 and taken the earnings at Rs.4,000/-per month in all as on the date of accident. Thereby the Tribunal was right in not taken into consideration the payment of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal believed that the deceased was working in the Tours and Travels of P.W-3 and taken the earnings at Rs.4,000/-per month in all as on the date of accident. The claimants relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza V. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (2013 ACJ 2733) to say in the claim of deceased was doing polishing and colouring and earning Rs.4,000/-to Rs.5,000/- per month, the Apex Court taken therein at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/-is to be taken herein also. There is no principle laid down in the expression in deciding on own facts. In fact the Apex Court in the settled expression in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197 = AIR 2001 (SC) 3218 ) held that in the absence of proof of earnings Rs.3,000/-per month can be taken. In fact the same expression was reiterated in the recent expression of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal V. Lala (2014)1 SCC 244 ) at page 257 para 39 following said expression in Latha Wadhwa (supra) that even in a claim under Section 163-A instead of Rs.15,000/- p.a. for the non-earning persons Rs.30,000/-p.a. minimum to be taken. Thus, if Rs.3,000/- per month taken from said expressions in the particular case from the Tribunal held he was working in the Travels and as per the Three Judge Bench expression in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 ACJ 1403=(4)ALT-35(SC) of persons between 30 to 40 years, where skilled persons or regular wage earners or fixed salary employees, the prospective increase is upto 50% and from 40 to 50 years, it is 30% and 50 to 60 years it is 15% from actuals for consideration; from that even taken from the age about 40 years as per Ex.A-7 bonafide certificate at 40% increase to the said Rs.3,000/- per month it comes to Rs.4,200/-per month. In fact it is for the reason that though the claim is filed under Section 166 and 163-A of the Act in view of the option to be exercised before commencement of the trial not exercised as per the expression in Deepal Girishbhai Soni V. United India Insurance Co. In fact it is for the reason that though the claim is filed under Section 166 and 163-A of the Act in view of the option to be exercised before commencement of the trial not exercised as per the expression in Deepal Girishbhai Soni V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004(5) ALT 11 (SC); from the division bench expression in Bhupati Prameela V. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram ( 2010(4) ALD 531 (DB) that Section 166 of the Act is beneficial to be taken into consideration; if that is taken, the earnings of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,200/- per month as arrived supra and as per SarlaVerma v Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) if the person aged between 35 to 40 years, the multiplier 15 has to be adopted and the claimants are 4 in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased as per Sarla Verma (supra). After applying said multiplier and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses from said earnings, it comes to Rs.5,67,000/- (Rs.4,200 x ¾ x 12 x 15). Apart from it, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- to be awarded towards funereal expenses vide Rajesh (supra), Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- each to the two minor children i.e., Rs.20,000/- towards care and guidance, it comes to Rs.7,17,000/-. After deducting 25% of it towards contributory negligence of the deceased, it comes to Rs.5,37,750/- rounded to Rs.5,40,000/- to enhance from Rs.4,89,400/-. POINT No.2: MACMA No.2111 of 2008 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. MACMA No.5327 of 2008 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,89,000/-to Rs.5,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C shall deposit the same within one month, with notice to claimants, failing which the claimants can execute and recover the same. In other respects the award of the Tribunal holds good. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.