JUDGMENT S.N. Satyanarayana, J. - These two appeals are filed by the first claimant in MVC No. 23/2012 and second respondent - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC for short), respectively. The appeal filed by the first claimant in M.F.A. No. 3340/2019 is seeking enhancement of compensation and also to re-adjust the ratio in which the compensation was awarded to her in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 2. Three years earlier to filing of this appeal by the first claimant, the second respondent - APSRTC has filed an appeal in M.F.A. No. 6413/2016, challenging the finding regarding negligence as well as the quantum. These two appeals are taken up together for consideration. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under: The material on record would indicate that the first claimant before the Tribunal Smt. P.S. Archana and her husband P.R. Sharath, were inmates of Maruti Suzuki Swift Car bearing registration No. KA-05-MH-1108. When they were proceeding from Hyderabad towards Bengaluru, the Car in which they were traveling was met with an accident on NH-44 at Y junction of Raapthadu Village, Ananthapur District, at about 10:30 a.m., involving APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP-02-Z-0144. 4. The said accident is not in dispute, so also, the death of first claimants husband P.R. Sharath in the said accident. It is stated that immediately thereafter a claim petition was filed by the widow and parents of the deceased - P.R. Sharath seeking compensation in MVC No. 23/2012, where they claim a compensation in a sum of Rs. 2 Crores, wherein, they would contend that the age of the deceased - P.R. Sharath was 29 years as on the date of the accident, he was working as Software Engineer in Microsoft India, Hyderabad and drawing a salary of Rs. 87,574/- per month. The said claim was contested by the second respondent - APSRTC., on all counts i.e., with reference to the age of the deceased, his income and also the aspect of negligence attributed to APSRTC as well as the rate of interest awarded. 5. In the said proceedings, when evidence was recorded, the first claimant adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and the mother of the deceased - third claimant - Smt. P.R. Padma adduced evidence as P.W. 2. In support of their claim, they have produced in all 18 documents, which are marked as Exs. P1 to P18. 5. In the said proceedings, when evidence was recorded, the first claimant adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and the mother of the deceased - third claimant - Smt. P.R. Padma adduced evidence as P.W. 2. In support of their claim, they have produced in all 18 documents, which are marked as Exs. P1 to P18. 6. Per contra, APSRTC, adduced evidence through its driver as R.W. 1 and the conductor of the bus, which was involved in the accident as R.W. 2 and they produced in all 15 documents, out of that Exs. R1 to R14 are photographs and Ex. R15 is the C.D. showing the place of accident, the stage of the vehicle after the accident and other related things. 7. The Tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, proceeded to award compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,35,37,228/- which is apportioned at the rate of 1/3rd to the widow, 1/3rd to the father and 1/3rd to the mother and it has also awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Claimants No. 2 and 3 have accepted the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and they did not challenge the same. However, claimant No. 1, who is the widow of the deceased in challenging the same by filing an appeal in M.F.A. No. 3340/2019. 8. Admittedly, this appeal is filed beyond 2 1/2 years (precisely, 986 days) from the date of the Judgment and Award rendered by the Tribunal. However, what is to be seen is immediately after the Judgment and Award was passed, second respondent - APSRTC had filed an appeal in M.F.A. No. 6413/2016, where they challenge the quantum of compensation, liability saddled on the APSRTC to pay the compensation and also the rate of interest, which is awarded in the award by the Tribunal. 9. When these two appeals had come up for consideration, after the Tribunal records being secured, they are taken up for final disposal. At the time of disposal of these appeals, when the material available on record is seen, it is noticed that the Tribunal after looking into the salary certificate, age of the deceased and also the dependency of his widow and parents, has rightly assessed the compensation that is required to be awarded in a sum of Rs. 1,35,37,228/-, which appears to be just and proper. 10. 1,35,37,228/-, which appears to be just and proper. 10. Now coming to the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence, the evidence of R.W. 1, driver of APSRTC is looked into, where he clearly admits that the victim in the accident P.R. Sharath was driving the Car keeping to the left side of the road and according to him, the reason for accident is his mistake and that is the reason why police have filed the charge sheet against him. When such clear admission is there on the part of the driver of offending bus, question of shifting the liability to pay the compensation from the shoulder of APSRTC does not arise. Accordingly, the said ground also requires to be rejected. 11. In the facts and circumstances, this Court find that the compensation awarded in the manner in which it is apportioned between the three claimants, is also just and proper for the reason that subsequently, the first claimant, who is the widow of the deceased has re-married and settled in life and also she being a qualified M.Sc., graduate, has a bright future of securing a job for her survival. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court is of the considered opinion that awarding of 1/3rd share in the total compensation to her is just and proper. Similarly, 1/3rd to each of the parents, who have lost their only son and who does not have anybody else to fall back on in the Society and being left with nobody to take care of them at their old age are rightly awarded 1/3rd share in the total compensation, which also appears to be correct. 12. It is in this background, the appeal filed by the first claimant seeking enhancement and also re-adjustment of the share between her and her in-laws cannot be considered. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the first clamant in M.F.A. No. 3340/2019 is hereby dismissed. 13. While doing so, the appeal, which is filed by the APSRTC with reference to the quantum and as well as the negligence is also to be dismissed. However, when it comes to interest, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding 9% interest. Hence, the same is reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. With this, the appeal of APSRTC in M.F.A. No. 6413/2016 is allowed in part.