JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.10.2014 in MVOP.No.418 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent APSRTC preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.418 of 2013. 3. As seen in the pleadings, the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides; the following facts are either admitted or undisputed. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased, i.e., Jonnakuti Koteswara Rao. The 1st respondent is the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z2705 (referred to as the offending vehicle), and the 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of APSRTC. 4. The claim made by the petitioners under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles At, 1988, for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest and costs. It is the case of the claimants that on 19.02.2013 at about 08.15 AM, the deceased was going to Priyadarsini Degree College to attend his 2nd-year degree class on a motorcycle bearing No.AP7BK2496, the 1st respondent, drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and gave a dash to the deceased's motorcycle, due to which the deceased fell on the left side tyres of the bus. The bus ran over the deceased, causing severe injuries; he succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the hospital. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte, and the 2nd respondent filed a counter by contending that there was no negligence on the offending vehicle's driver. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. On behalf of the petitioners, examined PWs.1 and 2, marked Exs.A1 to A10; on behalf of the 2nd respondent, none were examined and marked no documents. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., the 1st respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record. 9. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., the 1st respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driver of the offending bus and Tribunal committed a severe irregularity in granting compensation amount and the Tribunal came to a conclusion regarding the income of the deceased without any basis. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal. 10. Now points for determination are whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1st respondent and whether the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 11. To prove the accident, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 is the 1st petitioner. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was not a direct witness to the accident. Though he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination, nothing elicited to discredit his evidence. PW.2 – J.Durga Prasad stated his evidence that he was present at the time of the accident and on 19.02.2013 at about 08.15 AM, or 08.20 AM, while the deceased was going towards Tenali from Kolluru village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP7BK2496, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP282705 drove the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed gave a dash to the deceased motorcycle, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 12. The respondents have not disputed the deceased's death due to injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioners relied on an Ex.A1 copy of FIR in Cr. No.4 of 2013 of Kolluru police station and Ex.A2 copy of the inquest report of the deceased, Ex.A3 copy of the postmortem report of the deceased and copy of the charge sheet in Cr. No.4 of 2013 of Kolluru Police Station. 13. The driver of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the manner of an accident. No.4 of 2013 of Kolluru police station and Ex.A2 copy of the inquest report of the deceased, Ex.A3 copy of the postmortem report of the deceased and copy of the charge sheet in Cr. No.4 of 2013 of Kolluru Police Station. 13. The driver of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the manner of an accident. The 2nd respondent has not taken steps to prove the manner of the accident by summoning the 1st respondent and establishing that he did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident, as alleged by the claimants. 14. A reading of Ex.A1 FIR coupled with an Ex.A10 certified copy of the charge sheet shows that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it rashly and negligently and caused the accident. 15. The respondent places no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In a decision reported in 2015 ACJ 797 between K. Rajani and V. M. Satyanarayana Goud and others, this Court is pleased to observe that : "when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false". In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: "It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied". 16. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent without conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. 17. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. 17. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. The document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident's mode and manner of happening. As such, it is by now well settled that even FIR or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident. 18. The Tribunal has accepted the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident and also took the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the auto driver responsible for the accident. As observed, the charge sheet contents also support the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident. 19. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and when the appellant contends that the accident happened differently, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal basing on which the Tribunal expected to give its conclusion. 20. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle holds good. 21. To prove the deceased's age at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has considered Ex.A2 inquest report and Ex.A3 postmortem report. The age of the deceased was not disputed seriously. After considering the evidence on record, this Court believes that the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the age of the deceased as of the date of the accident was 20 years. Taking into consideration of Ex.A7 copy of the Intermediate Certificate of the deceased, Ex.A8 certified copy of the deceased and the age of the deceased is taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration of Ex.A7 copy of the Intermediate Certificate of the deceased, Ex.A8 certified copy of the deceased and the age of the deceased is taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered Ex.A9 memorandum of marks of the deceased for the 1st year B.Sc., Degree to conclude that he completed 1st year degree course and was studying 2nd year degree course. The Tribunal relied on a judgment reported in B.Ramulamma and others Vs. M/s.Venkatesh Bus Union, Represented by A.M. Velu Mudaliya, Bangalore and another, 2009(6) ALT 784 (D.B.), wherein this Court held that the income of the deceased, who was studying B.Tech., Degree courses can take notionally at Rs.12,000/-per month. The Tribunal assessed the deceased's earnings at Rs.6,000/-notionally per month as he was studying B.Sc. Degree course on the date of the accident. Because the deceased completed 1st year of the Degree course, this Court believes that it can take the notional earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted half of the assessed income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses had he been alive, and it comes to Rs.24,000/-. But the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased's mother to compute compensation. Even though the deceased died as a bachelor in an accident, this Court views the deceased's age to be considered only. The relevant multiplier is applicable to be 18. If the net loss of the dependency is Rs.24,000/-multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 18, it comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. 22. In Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/-under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10 per cent every three years. Held it thus in para 61: "(viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively. They should enhance aforesaid mentioned amounts at the rate of 10% every three years". They rendered the Judgment in Pranay Sethi in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10 per cent enhancement. Thus, a sum of Rs.16,500/- each was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 23. In Magma General Ins. They should enhance aforesaid mentioned amounts at the rate of 10% every three years". They rendered the Judgment in Pranay Sethi in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10 per cent enhancement. Thus, a sum of Rs.16,500/- each was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 23. In Magma General Ins. Co.Ltd., V.Nanu Ram, [ 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)], the Apex Court held that: "The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. A constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. 24. In legal parlance, "consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium ''parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company. Care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection for the deceased, which is a loss of his family. For a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, [ 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)]]. The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Thus the appellants are entitled to compensation as under : i. Towards loss of dependency : Rs. 4,32,000/- ii. Loss of estate : Rs. 16,500/- iii. Funeral expenses : Rs. 16,500/- iv. Filial consortium : Rs. 49,000- Total : Rs. 5,14,000/- 25. At its discretion, Tribunal awarded the interest amount at 8% per annum. The respondent's counsel contended that the interest granted is excessive and on the higher side, and the interest is to be scaled down. Placed no material to show that the interest awarded is not on par with the guidelines of RBI on the date of occurrence. The respondents have not placed evidence regarding the prevailing interest rate as of the accident's date. In a decision reported by United India Insurance co. Placed no material to show that the interest awarded is not on par with the guidelines of RBI on the date of occurrence. The respondents have not placed evidence regarding the prevailing interest rate as of the accident's date. In a decision reported by United India Insurance co. Ltd. Vs Satinder Kaur and others 2020 ACJ 2131 , in a case where the Tribunal allowed interest at 9% per annum and the High Court reduced the rate to 7.5% per annum and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed it appropriate to direct the interest at the rate of 12% per annum be paid on the total compensation awarded. The granting of the interest rate depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot say that the rate of interest cannot be exceeded by more than 7.5% per annum. Based on the case facts, the Tribunal awarded the interest 8% per annum. As such, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is not interfered with. 26. Given the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal, and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal, devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed without costs; the order dt.17.10.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.418 of 2013 is hereby confirmed. 27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are pending shall stand closed.