JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Appellants - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed M.A.C.M.A. No.2421 of 2006 assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 in O.P. No.819 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- towards compensation to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the petitioners - claimants. 3. Dissatisfied with the said compensation, the claimant also filed cross - objection vide I.A. No.3 of 2007 (Cross Objection (SR) No.9484 of 2007) in the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 4,15,000/- to Rs. 10.00 lakhs and also interest from 7.5% per annum to 9% per annum. 4. Heard Mr. G. Prasanth, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Cross-objectors. 5. The facts leading to prefer the present appeal are that on 21.05.2003, while Kothi Nadipi Sayanna, 'deceased' was waiting for bus at Yellareddypally Bus Stand, at about 11.00 a.m., bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 5742 came from Dharpally and stopped at the bus stage. Some of the passengers got down from the bus and while the deceased was boarding the bus, driver of the bus suddenly drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without closing the door and receiving the signal from the conductor. On account of which, the deceased fell down from the footboard and rear wheels of the bus ran over him. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter while on the way to Gandhi Hospital, he died. Prior to the accident, the deceased was 40 years old, hale and healthy. He was earning an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing agricultural, selling vegetables and paddy business. On account of death of the deceased, cross-objectors, wife and son, lost their only earning member and thereby suffered huge loss, both monetary and physical. Hence, they laid the claim seeking an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation against the appellants. 6. He was earning an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing agricultural, selling vegetables and paddy business. On account of death of the deceased, cross-objectors, wife and son, lost their only earning member and thereby suffered huge loss, both monetary and physical. Hence, they laid the claim seeking an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation against the appellants. 6. The appellants filed the written statement denying the compensation. 7. The Tribunal on the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation. 8. As against the said grant of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal contending that the accident occurred was due to negligence on the part of the deceased only. The Tribunal went wrong in believing the evidence of PW.2 and accepting the contents of Ex.A2 - charge sheet. The Tribunal has also wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- so also his age as 45 years. Therefore, the appellants prayed to set aside the judgment and decree by allowing the appeal. 9. On the other hand, it is contended by the cross-objectors that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 40 years instead of 45 and the monthly earnings as Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal also went wrong in awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- erroneously without considering the evidence, both oral and documentary. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal by allowing the cross-objections. 10. On perusal of the record, it is clear that though the appellants - RTC disputed the manner in which the accident occurred, but the Tribunal relying on the deposition of PW.1, wife of the deceased, PW.2, eye-witness to the extent and also Ex.A1 - FIR and Ex.A3 - charge sheet, gave a specific finding that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the bus belonging to the appellants. Further, there is no contra evidence to disagree with the said finding given by the Tribunal. Appellants Corporation did not elicit anything from PW.1 during crossexamination. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant is satisfactory. 11. Appellants Corporation did not elicit anything from PW.1 during crossexamination. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant is satisfactory. 11. As far as compensation granted by the Tribunal is concerned, though the learned counsel for the appellants disputed the same, did not produce any contra evidence. Therefore, their contention as to the Tribunal granted excess compensation etc., is baseless. 12. Coming to the cross-objection, it is contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, the deceased was aged 40 years as on the date of accident. But, in Ex.A4 - postmortem examination report filed by the cross-objectors before the Tribunal discloses the age of the deceased as 45 years. More over, petitioner No.2, son of the deceased, himself gave complaint to the police in which he has mentioned the age of the deceased as 45 years. The cross-objectors did not file any other evidence to prove the age of the deceased as 40 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the aged of the deceased as 45 years instead of 40 years and the same cannot be found fault. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal also went wrong in applying the multiplier as 15'. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 15', but the same is incorrect in view of the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 . As per the said decision, the relevant multiplier for the age groups of 41-45 years is 14' and, therefore, the same is taken into consideration. 14. Insofar as the monthly earnings of the deceased is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal went wrong in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-. Whereas, it is contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by doing agriculture work, selling vegetables and doing paddy business, but the Tribunal without considering the same, wrongly assessed it as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 3,000/-. Whereas, it is contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by doing agriculture work, selling vegetables and doing paddy business, but the Tribunal without considering the same, wrongly assessed it as Rs. 3,000/- per month. In support of the same, the cross-objectors filed Ex.A5 - income certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Yellareddypally village and Exs.A6 and A7 - Photostat copies of pattadar passbook and title deed. Exs.A6 and A7 would show that agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.03 guntas stood in the name of son of the deceased i.e., cross-objector No.2. Further, PW.3 deposed that the deceased was cultivating 5 acres of land by raising maize and other commercial crops, doing paddy business and was earning Rs. 2.00 lakhs per annum. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal and living expenses, arrived at Rs. 24,000/- per annum towards contribution to the family and by applying multiplier 15', arrived the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,60,000/-. But, as per Ex.A5 - certificate issued by the Village Sarpanch, income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum, but except the said document, the petitioners have not filed any other document to prove the same. However, considering the nature of avocation of the deceased and basing on Exs.A5, A6 and A7 and evidence of PW.3, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- can be considered as monthly income of the deceased. Since the dependants are two in number, cross-objectors, on the income of the deceased, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased as per the principle held in Sarla Verma, 2009 6 SCC 121 and when the same is deducted, 2/3rd would come to Rs. 4,000/- per month and the annual income would be Rs. 48,000/-. When the said annual income of Rs. 48,000/- is multiplied with the relevant multiplier 14', it works out to Rs. 6,72,000/- and accordingly, the same is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of dependency or the contribution to the family. 15. As already discussed supra, the deceased died when he was 45 years old. The deceased was not having any permanent job and, therefore, his avocation could be considered under self-employment. 6,72,000/- and accordingly, the same is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of dependency or the contribution to the family. 15. As already discussed supra, the deceased died when he was 45 years old. The deceased was not having any permanent job and, therefore, his avocation could be considered under self-employment. Accordingly, an addition of 25% is to be awarded to the crossobjectors as per the principle held by the Apex Court National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680 for the age groups of 40-50 years and the same would work out to Rs. 1,68,000/- (25% of 6,72,000/-. 16. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 18 SCC 130 respondent Nos.1 and 2 - cross-objectors are entitled Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 17. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and son of the deceased are considered as dependants for awarding spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively and, therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each under the said heads as per the principle held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited, 2018 18 SCC 130 . Thus, in all, respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Cross-objectors are entitled to Rs. 9,55,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and fifty five thousand only) as compensation under the following heads: i) Loss of dependency .. Rs. 6,72,000-00 ii) Future prospects at 25% .. Rs. 1,68,000-00 iii) Funeral expenses .. Rs. 15,000-00 iv) Loss of estate .. Rs. 15,000-00 v) Spousal Consortium .. Rs. 40,000-00 vi) Parental consortium .. Rs. 40,000-00 vii) Transportation charges .. Rs. 5,000-00 _______________ Total .. Rs. 9,55,000-00 Thus, the said amount of Rs. 9,55,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and fifty five only) is awarded as compensation 18. The Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which is reasonable and, therefore, the same is affirmed and awarded even on the enhanced compensation. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.2421 of 2006 filed by the Appellants - RTC is dismissed and Cross Objection viz., I.A. No.3 of 2007 (Cross Objection (SR) No.9484 of 2007) is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 in O.P. No.819 of 2003 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 9,55,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and fifty five thousand only) from Rs. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 in O.P. No.819 of 2003 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 9,55,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and fifty five thousand only) from Rs. 4,15,000/-(Rupees four lakhs and fifteen thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the petitioners in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposed within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.