JUDGMENT : C.R. Kumaraswamy, J. 1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3980/2015 is filed under section 173[1] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Award dated 16.2.2015 passed in MVC No. 6764/2013 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, 34th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member-7, Bangalore, awarding compensation of Rs. 13,35,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4640/2015 is filed under section 173[1] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Award dated 16.2.2015 passed in MVC No. 6764/2013 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, 34th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member-7, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as learned Counsel for the respondents, this matter was taken up for final disposal and thereafter this matter was heard on merits. The materials placed before this Court is sufficient to dispose of these cases at this stage. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in MFA No. 4640/2015 has produced certified copies of depositions of PW.1 -Siddalmgegowda, PW.2 - Vinay, RW.1 - K.L. Nagaraja, certified copy of charge sheet, complaint copy, certified copy of post mortem report of deceased Sudha, spot panchanama, sketch of scene of offence, statement of father of the deceased recorded during inquest panchanama, stipend certificate issued by Asahi India Glass Limited, statement of marks sheet, Election Commission Identity Cards of father of the deceased, mother of the deceased and also of the deceased, Ration Card, admission card of Surana College in respect of Master of Business Administration, Surana College fee receipt, marks card of Master of Business Administration of the deceased, driving licence of Vinay. I have carefully examined these documents. 5. The case of the claimants before the Claims Tribunal is as under: "That the Claimants are parents and younger sisters of the deceased. On 19.10.2013 at about 3.30 pm, deceased was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 as a pillion rider. When she reached near U.P. Ramp Bridge, Kengeri, Bengaluru, at that time driver of BMTC Bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, towards Kengeri Satellite Town, hit against the motor cyclist which was ridden by Vinay. When she reached near U.P. Ramp Bridge, Kengeri, Bengaluru, at that time driver of BMTC Bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, towards Kengeri Satellite Town, hit against the motor cyclist which was ridden by Vinay. Consequently, Sudha fell down and sustained injuries. She was shifted to BGS Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. The Doctor who examined her, declared that she was dead. The dead body was shifted to Rajajarajeshwari Hospital, Bengaluru, for post mortem. The dead body was shifted in a hired vehicle for which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent for transportation of dead body, funeral expenses and obsequies charges. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. She used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month on earlier occasion as an Account Assistant in Akkai Glass Suppliers, Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk. In order to improve her future prospects and in order to get a potential job, she discontinued her job and joined MBA course at Surana College, Bengaluru, for higher prospective earnings. Due to the said accident, they have lost their earning member of the family. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the BMTC Bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 by its driver on 19.10.2013. The Kengeri Traffic Police have registered a case against him in Crime No. 138/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of CPC." 6. The Respondent has filed objection statement in the Court below. 7. The respondent has stated that no accident was caused by the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 or by its driver on 19.10.2013. It is further status that on 19.10.2013, the driver of the bus KA-01-FA-2060 was proceeding from Kengeri to Hebbal flyover at about 15.40 hours, at that time, the rider of the two wheeler bearing No. KA-41-X-134 attempted to overtake the bus from the right side in a rash and negligent manner and the said rider of the two wheeler lost control over the vehicle and the left side handle of two wheeler touched the right side rear vehicle of the Bus and fell down from the vehicle and the rider Vinay sustained injuries and pillion rider Sudha sustained bleeding injuries. She was shifted to Hospital and was found dead. There is total negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler only and not on the BMTC Driver. She was shifted to Hospital and was found dead. There is total negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler only and not on the BMTC Driver. The Police have registered the case against the driver without conducting proper investigation. Merely because, Police have registered a case, he cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 8. The sum and substance of the finding of the Claims Tribunal is as under: "PW.1 has stated in his Chief Examination that on 19.10.2013 at about 3.30 pm, the deceased was traveling in a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 as a pillion rider when the accident took place. PW.1 in his cross examination has stated that deceased was his daughter who died in the accident which took place on 19.10.2013 at about 3.30 pm. PW.1 has produced Ex. P1 - FIR, Ex. P2 - Complaint, Ex. P3 - Post Mortem Report, Ex. P4 - IMV Report, Ex. P5 - Spot Panchanama, Ex. P6 - Spot hand sketch, Ex. P7 - Statement of the father of the deceased, Ex. P8 - Charge Sheet and Ex. P17 -Death Invitation Card in this case." 9. The Claims Tribunal has further observed, on perusal of the contents of the material documents which clearly shows that Claimant No. 1 is father of the deceased, Claimant No. 2 is mother and Claimants 3 and 4 are sisters of deceased Sudha. 10. The Trial Court at paragraph - 11 has observed that PW.1 has stated in his evidence that on 19.10.2013 the deceased who is his daughter Sudha was going in a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 as a pillion rider and when she reached near UP Ramp Bridge, Kengeri, Bengaluru, at that time, driver of the BMTC Bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner towards Kengeri Satellite Town dashed against the motor cyclist, as a result, deceased fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to BGS Hospital, Bengaluru and she expired there. 11. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to BGS Hospital, Bengaluru and she expired there. 11. On the other hand, respondent has examined the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 as RW.1 who has stated in Examination-in-Chief that on 19.10.2013 when he was driving the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 over the Kengeri flyover at about 15.40 hours, at that time, the rider of the two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 where the deceased Sudha was proceeding as a pillion rider, attempted to overtake the bus and the rider of the two wheeler lost his control over the vehicle on the left side handle of two wheeler touched the right side rear vehicle of the bus and fell down from the vehicle and rider Vinay sustained injuries. 12. The Trial Court observed that no doubt, PW.1 in his cross examination has stated that he does not know that, at the time of accident, the bus was moving slowly on the flyover. The oral version of RW.1 as well as evidence elicited from PW.1 and PW.2 cannot be believed and accepted that there was no negligence on the part of RW.1 who was driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060. The entire negligence is on the part of PW.2 who was rider of motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 wherein deceased Sudha was proceeding as a pillion rider. PW.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that unknown person has informed him about the accident. The entire negligence is on the part of PW.2 who was rider of motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 wherein deceased Sudha was proceeding as a pillion rider. PW.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that unknown person has informed him about the accident. Further, PW.2 who is an eye witness and rider of the motor cycle has stated that on 19.10.2013 at about 3.30 pm, his friend Kumari Sudha i.e., deceased called him to take her to Hoysala Circle from Kengeri Bus Stand as she has urgent work and as such he took her on his Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-X-134 as a pillion rider and were proceeding from Mysore Road to Kengeri Satellite and they were proceeding on the left side of the road upper ramp at that time, the BMTC Bus came from behind in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against his Motor Cycle and its back side and due to which, he and Sudha fell down along with the motor cycle and the right side front wheel of said bus ran over the stomach of Sudha and she sustained grievous injuries and when she was taken to the hospital, she succumbed. 13. It is further mentioned in the impugned Judgment that driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060 has caused the accident at about 3.30 pm and further clearly stated in cross examination that as on the date of the accident, the company wherein he is working was on leave and when telephoned to him, he was in his house and she informed to take her to him, he was in his house and she informed to take her to paying guest at Hoysala Circle and when Sudha telephoned, she was at old Bus stop at Kengeri and both together proceeded to Hoysala, at that time, the bus was proceeding from Guruguntepalya. Furthermore, RW.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that since 2007, he has been working as a BMTC Driver and at the time of the accident, the bus came from Kengeri to Hebbal. At the time of accident, he was on duty. Furthermore, RW.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that since 2007, he has been working as a BMTC Driver and at the time of the accident, the bus came from Kengeri to Hebbal. At the time of accident, he was on duty. RW.1 has clearly stated that he does not know on which side of the bus, the rider of the two wheeler was coming at the time of accident and he has not lodged the complaint before the Police alleging that since the rider of the two wheeler was riding to overtake his bus and due to his negligence, the accident took place. If really there was no negligence on the part of RW.1, driver of the bus, the entire negligence is on PW.2 wherein deceased was proceeding, RW.1 could have lodged a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police. Not lodging of the complaint of the accident clearly implies that RW.1 was very much involved when he was driving the offending vehicle due to his own negligence that accident took place. Furthermore, to corroborate the oral version of PW.1, petitioners have produced Ex. P1 - FIR, Ex. P2 - Complaint, Ex. P3 - Post Mortem Report, Ex. P4 - IMV Report, Ex. P5 - Spot Panchanama, Ex. P6 - Spot hand sketch, Ex. P7 -Statement of the father of the deceased, Ex. P8 - Charge Sheet and Ex. P17 - Death Invitation Card, all clearly show that the deceased succumbed to injuries. 14. Ex. P2 is complaint wherein Kengeri Traffic Police have registered criminal case against RW.1 for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of CPC. 15. The Trial Court has observed that it is also clear from the contents of Ex. P6 - Spot sketch that if RW.1 had taken little care before the accident, the accident could have been definitely avoided. It is further clear from the contents of Ex. P4 that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect of both the vehicles. The contents of Ex. P18 clearly reveals that the bus in question was driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. Taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for death of Sudha. 16. Taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for death of Sudha. 16. The Claims Tribunal has mentioned that deceased was earning Rs. 7,875/- as stipend from Asahi India Glass Limited. It is also observed in the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal that in order to develop her future prospects and in order to get potential job, she has discontinued her job and joined Surana College. Ex. P9 is letter dated 15.8.2012, Ex. P10 is Statement of Marks in respect of Bachelor of Business Management 12 in numbers, Ex. P15 is College Identity Card. She has undergone training from 6.6.2012 to 17.9.2012 in Auto Gas by drawing monthly stipend of Rs. 7,875/-. The deceased Sudha was MBA II Year Student. Ex. P16 is statement of marks in respect of Bachelor of Business Management relating to deceased Sudha. The deceased was aged 24 years old. Ex. P9 is the letter stating that from 6.6.2012 to 17.9.2012 she was drawing monthly stipend of Rs. 7,875/-. Considering the same, the Claims Tribunal feels that it is just, proper and necessary to take notional income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of the accident. 50% of the annual income towards future prospects is taken and therefore adding Rs. 5,000/- as income, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per month. So, due to loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,60,000/-. Besides, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded under the head 'funeral expenses', Rs. 25,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate', Rs. 5,000/- under the head 'Expenses of transportation of dead body' and consequently total of Rs. 13,35,000/- is awarded as compensation. 17. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has preferred an appeal on the following grounds: "The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident is erroneous. The Tribunal failed to notice that damage caused to the motor cycle is only minor in nature. If the evidence of eye witness is to be accepted stating that bus dashed against motor cycle, it has to be proved. The Tribunal failed to notice that damage caused to the motor cycle is only minor in nature. If the evidence of eye witness is to be accepted stating that bus dashed against motor cycle, it has to be proved. But, the IMV report discloses that there is no damage caused to the bus. From this it is evident that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal's observation that the driver of the bus did not lodge a complaint and therefore he was responsible for the accident is erroneous. The income assessed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. The Tribunal in adding 50% of the income to future prospects in the absence of definite evidence is erroneous." 18. Learned Counsel for the Appellants in MFA No. 4640/2015 submits as under: "That the multiplier adopted is 14' and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18'. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Even deduction of 50% towards her personal expenses is improper." 19. In this case, the Authorized Officer of the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060, has filed objection statement and he has verified contents of the objection statement. In this case, the cause title of the Tribunal clearly discloses that the driver has not been made as party. Even the respondent has not made any efforts to implead driver as party to the proceedings. On the other hand, the Authorized Officer of the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060, has filed objection statement before the Court below. The driver has entered into the witness box and deposed in the same line as that of the objection statement filed by the Authorized Officer. The driver has not verified the contents of the objection statement. On the contrary, the driver has entered into the witness box and deposed before the Tribunal. He has filed his affidavit by way of chief examination. The driver has not verified the contents of the objection statement. On the contrary, the driver has entered into the witness box and deposed before the Tribunal. He has filed his affidavit by way of chief examination. In his cross examination, he states that on 19.10.2013 he was driving the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060, from Kengeri to Hebbal flyover at about 15.40 hours, at that time, the rider of the two wheeler bearing No. KA-41-X-134 attempted to overtake the bus from the right side in a rash and negligent manner and the said rider of the two wheeler lost control over the vehicle and the left side handle of two wheeler touched the right side rear vehicle of the Bus and fell down from the vehicle and the rider Vinay sustained injuries. During his cross examination, he states that since the year 2007 he has been working as a BMTC Driver and at the time of the accident, the bus came from Kengeri to Hebbal. At the time of accident, he was on duty. RW.1 has clearly stated that he does not know on which side of the bus, the rider of the two wheeler was coming at the time of accident. 20. Ex. P6 is sketch of scene of offence drawn by the Station House Officer, Kengeri Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru City. Ex. P6 discloses that there is divider and bus was proceeding on the middle of the road on rainbow bridge and hit against the two wheeler. The Police have investigated the case and lodged charge sheet against the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-2060. It is alleged that he was driving the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The driver was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of CPC. Though the driver of the bus had stated in his evidence that he was driving the bus at 10 kilometers per hour, he has not filed independent objection statement before the Tribunal. He has not made attempts to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. He has simply entered witness box and deposed before the Tribunal relying on the objection statement filed by his employer. A careful examination of the Ex. He has not made attempts to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. He has simply entered witness box and deposed before the Tribunal relying on the objection statement filed by his employer. A careful examination of the Ex. P6 sketch, and the Police who have investigated the case have lodged charge sheet against the driver of the bus and also on appreciating the evidence of RW.1 and materials placed before this court, in my opinion, finding recorded by the Tribunal that driver of the bus was solely responsible for causing this accident does not suffer from any infirmity. 21. The next contention by learned Counsel for the Appellants in MFA No. 4640/2015 is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The income assessed is on the lower side, the multiplier adopted is improper, the age of the deceased has to be taken whereas age of the parents has been taken as factor for applying the multiplier. In this case, the deceased was 'Trainee', unmarried woman, she was getting stipend of approximately Rs. 7,500/- at the time of the accident. She was also pursuing her studies for Master of Business Administration. She intended to have better prospects in her life and therefore she was making efforts to acquire Master of Business Administration Degree. She has also produced marks card pertaining to Bachelor of Business Management. Taking into consideration all these aspects, she would have earned more in future. This aspect cannot be lost sight of. The Claims Tribunal has added 50% towards her future prospects and taken income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- towards 'loss of dependency'. The main grievance of learned Counsel for the Appellants in MFA No. 4640/2015 is that multiplier adopted in this case is not correct. However, taking into consideration that the Tribunal has taken income slightly on the higher side and though the multiplier applied is 14' instead of 18', in my view, total compensation awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' at Rs. 12,60,000/- is reasonable. This is an Appellate Court. Appellate Court is empowered to rectify the error or scale down the amount or adjust the same among various heads of compensation. In my view, compensation awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' does not call for interference. 22. Even compensation awarded under the conventional heads is Rs. 12,60,000/- is reasonable. This is an Appellate Court. Appellate Court is empowered to rectify the error or scale down the amount or adjust the same among various heads of compensation. In my view, compensation awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' does not call for interference. 22. Even compensation awarded under the conventional heads is Rs. 75,000/- which also does not call for interference. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the facts and circumstances of the case and also evidence of the case and material placed before the Court, in my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The grounds urged by learned Counsel for the Appellant in MFA No. 3980/2015 that there is negligence on the part of the rider is not acceptable and no ground is made out to interfere with that finding in respect of evidence recorded by the Tribunal. 23. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER "[i] Both the appeals are dismissed. [ii] The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal."