JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. This Appeal was filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment, dated 02.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.967 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 2. As per the averments of the claim petition on 15.10.2011 at early hours Thokala Peter Paul (who will be hereinafter referred to as "deceased") started from his house to attend his job on his bicycle and when he reached near Panchayat Office, Veeravalli Village of Bapulapadu Mandal, at about 6-35 a.m., then APSRTC Bus bearing No.A.P.11 Z 6734 (which will be hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without taking care and caution and dashed the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down and received head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Pinnamaneni Siddardha Medical Science and Research Center, China Avutapalli for treatment and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 20.10.2011. 3. The Veeravalli Police registered a case in Crime No.136 of 2011 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 58 years at the time of accident. He was working as a Gateman in South Central Railway at Veeravalli Village of Bapulapadu Mandal. He used to earn Rs.2,51,520/- per annum. The entire income was contributed to his family and if the deceased is alive, the claimants would have led happy life with the deceased and due to the death of the deceased the claimants became orphans and lost their bread winner. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and 2nd respondent is the Regional Manager of APSRTC, Vijayawada, who is the owner of the bus, are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle remained set exparte and 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 4. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle remained set exparte and 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. The 2nd respondent submits that on 15.10.2011 the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeding from Hanuman Junction to Vijayawada and when the bus reached at Veeravalli Village, then the driver of the bus observed that one cyclist was coming from the side road and the driver applied sudden brakes to avoid the accident, the driver followed precautionary measures went into the road margin, but the cyclist hit the left side front footboard of the stationed bus and fell down on the road. The 2nd respondent contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the cyclist and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. Ex.X.1 was marked through PW.3. The 2nd respondent did not adduce any evidence. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for 2nd respondent and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim application awarding total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till date of realization with proportionate costs holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 7. Heard, Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC and Sri N. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-claimant. 8. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC argued that the Tribunal without considering their pleadings in their counter granted the total claim of Rs.10,00,000/- which is erroneous and the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle without any acceptable evidence on record. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC argued that the Tribunal without considering their pleadings in their counter granted the total claim of Rs.10,00,000/- which is erroneous and the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle without any acceptable evidence on record. He further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while proceeding on his cycle. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive and unwarranted in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the claimants and the Tribunal committed error by considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.17,908/- per month without any valid proof and as such, the judgment of the Tribunal is to be set aside. 9. In contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-claimant submits that the judgment of the Tribunal is in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record and the compensation awarded is quite reasonable. 10. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel and after examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it appears that the claimants, through the evidence of PW.2-V. Deva Sahayam, who is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident and whose evidence is unchallenged and the documents which were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 categorically proved that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.A.P.11 Z 6734. Though, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased only and there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the 2nd respondent in support of their contention, did not examine either the driver or the owner of the bus to disprove the testimony of PWs.1 and 2. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent, this Court holds that the finding of the Tribunal on the negligence aspect is in accordance with law. 11. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent, this Court holds that the finding of the Tribunal on the negligence aspect is in accordance with law. 11. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the contention of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Gateman in South Central Railway and used to earn Rs.2,51,250/- per annum. The claimants examined PW.3-P. Kumar Babu to prove the income of the deceased. The PW.3 is working as a Track Maintainer No.4 under the control of Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way, Nuzvid in South Central Railway. The PW.2 deposed that the deceased was working as a Special Gateman under the control of Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way, South Central Railway, Nuzvid and he produced salary particulars of the deceased for the month of October, 2011 which is marked as Ex.X.1. As per Ex.X.1, the gross salary of the deceased for the month of October, 2011 was Rs.19,927/- and his net salary was Rs.17,908/- after deducting to a tune of Rs.2,119/-. He further deposed that as on the date of the death of deceased, he was in service as a Special Gateman. As per Ex.A.9, the salary particulars of the deceased for the month of September, 2011, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.20,960/- and net salary was Rs.18,641/-. The Tribunal has considered the Ex.X.1 which is latest one and considered the gross salary of deceased @ Rs.19,927/- per month and after deducting the net salary was Rs.17,908/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as "55" years as per Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.17,908/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased arrived to Rs.1,43,280/- per annum. The Tribunal applied the suitable multiplier "10" and assessed the loss of earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs.14,32,800/-. Apart from that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant being the wife and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate for both the claimants and 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled total compensation of Rs.14,52,800/- and in this case the claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- only, hence, their claim is restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-. 12. The Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled total compensation of Rs.14,52,800/- and in this case the claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- only, hence, their claim is restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-. 12. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and without any proof or evidence, but as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 coupled with Ex.A.9 and Ex.X.1, the claimants adduced sufficient evidence to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards death of the deceased and the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the death of deceased is cannot be treated as on higher side. The Tribunal considering the salary particulars of the deceased and by following proper procedure determined the "just" and "reasonable" compensation under law. As such, this Court holds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case in favour of the claimants is just and reasonable. The finding of the Tribunal that the 1st respondent being the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.A.P.11 Z 6734, who caused the accident, is working under the employment of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC, being the owner is liable to pay compensation along with interest accrued thereon is in accordance with law in the light of the evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, dated 02.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.967 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.