JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the appellant-respondent No. 2 against the order and decree dated 19-10-2015 in M.V.O.P.No. 168 of 2014 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam (for short, 'the Tribunal), by virtue of which the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of the deceased who was aged 8 years at the time of accident. 2. The facts of the case are that on the date of accident, which is on 23-05-2012, a lorry, which was going towards Vijayawada, was parked at the outskirts of Nandigama and the driver of the lorry went to attend calls of nature; then, respondent No. 1 -the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 468 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the stationed lorry from back side; as a result, the petitioner, who was traveling in the bus, sustained bleeding injuries and shifted to Vijaya Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada, but he died on the way. 3. Aggrieved by the death of the deceased, the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, filed the above-mentioned O.P. before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. Respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and contended that the driver of the lorry did not follow road rules. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether there is rash and negligent driving on the part of 1st respondent/driver of RTC bus in this accident resulting death of M.Navaneeth? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? And from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?" 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the petitioner and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No. 2. 5. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? And from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?" 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the petitioner and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No. 2. 5. Considering the evidence adduced, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, against which this appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Tribunal did not see that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the petitioner for grant of compensation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive; that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the income of the deceased would be Rs.30,000/-p.a.; that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground of non-joinder of proper party i.e. insurance company of the lorry and that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. On these grounds, the appellant preferred this appeal. 6. Heard. 7. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would show that there is ample evidence in the form of P.W.2 who spoke about the manner of the accident. It is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur since the evidence of P.W.2 was that the lorry was parked on left side of the road and that the driver of APSRTC bus dashed the stationed lorry from behind. There is absolutely no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents to disprove the evidence of P.W.2. Hence, it can be said that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. 8. The contention that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground of non-joinder of proper party i.e. insurance company of the lorry does not find merit, as, even if it is a case of collision between two vehicles, it would amount to a case of composite negligence, for which the victims would have an option to proceed against any of the joint tortfeasers. 9. 9. As regards the award of Rs.5,00,000/-, this Court does not find any reason to differ with the amount that was arrived at by the Tribunal as the Tribunal rightly based its calculation relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Vadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), wherein it was observed that notional income of a child should be taken as Rs.30,000/-p.a. and applied multiplier 15 following another judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhagwan and others, 2015 ACJ 324 . 10. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. The appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal shall stand dismissed in consequence.