JUDGMENT : K.S.Hemalekha, J. The present appeal is preferred by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BMTC-Corporation’ for Short) assailing the judgment and award dated 17.09.2016 passed in MVC.No.3101/2015 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru SCCH-7 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short), on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.79,10,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and fastened the liability upon the BMTC-Corporation. 2. The facts relevant that arise in this present miscellaneous first appeal is that the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 crore with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of one Pattabiraman .G, S/o late Govinda Shetty. M, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12.07.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding as a rider in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51-EN-7029 and when he reached in front of MLA Satish Reddy’s House, Hongasandra, Begur Main Road, Bengaluru, the BMTC bus driven by its driver bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased’s motor cycle and due to which, the deceased fell down and the bus ran over the deceased’s head. Claimant No.1 is the first wife of the deceased, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children through first wife, claimant No.4 is the second wife of the deceased and claimant No.5 is the minor son of the deceased through second wife and they being the legal heirs contended they are entitled for compensation. According to the claimants the deceased was aged about 47 years and was working as a Project Manager (Construction) at Vastu Properties and was drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/-per month at the time of the accident and the claimants were solely depending upon the income of the deceased. 3. According to the claimants the deceased was aged about 47 years and was working as a Project Manager (Construction) at Vastu Properties and was drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/-per month at the time of the accident and the claimants were solely depending upon the income of the deceased. 3. It is stated by the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and a case has been registered by the Madiwala Traffic Police against the driver of the BMTC bus in Crime No.114/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus the claimants sought to contend that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation as stated in the claim petition. 4. In pursuant to the notice ordered by the Tribunal, the BMTC-Corporation had appeared and filed its objections contending that the claim sought by the claimants is exorbitant and is not sustainable in law. According to the BMTC–Corporation, the driver of the bus bearing reg. No.KA-01-f-4296 was driving the bus on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and when the said bus reached near MLA Satish Reddy’s house main road, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle (the deceased) was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and was in a high speed and on a wrong side and while overtaking the bus from behind by seeing the coming vehicles from the opposite side fell on the road and touched the right side back wheel of the BMTC bus and died on the spot. It is stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself and the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. It is further averred that a false criminal case has been leveled against the driver of the bus and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings framed the following issues: “1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI. PATTABIRAMAN.G? 2. Whether the Petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-4296 by its driver and Sri. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings framed the following issues: “1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI. PATTABIRAMAN.G? 2. Whether the Petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-4296 by its driver and Sri. Pattabiraman G., died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom” 6. The claimants in order to substantiate their contention, examined claimant No.1-1st wife of the deceased as PW.1 and two witness were examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.32. On the other hand, the BMTC-Corporation examined the driver of the bus as RW.1, however no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296 and due to the impact of the accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased Pattabiraman and they are the legal representatives of the deceased and while holding that the Tribunal fastened the liability upon the BMTC-Corporation and awarded the compensation of Rs.79,10,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. The BMTC-Corporation aggrieved by the fastening of the liability and the award of the compensation by the Tribunal has preferred this present appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. The prime contention of Sri. D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/BMTC-Corporation is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself and the negligence fastened by the Tribunal on the part of the driver of the BMTC is not justifiable merely because the driver of the bus has been charge sheeted for the alleged negligence and that the charge sheet cannot be a basis to prove negligence of the driver. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the entire negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the BMTC bus when the evidence and material at Ex.P.4 – the sketch on record clearly establishes that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased himself. 11. The other point emphasized by the learned counsel for the BMTC-Corporation is that the way in which the entire proceedings have been investigated within two hours from the time of the accident took place i.e., 7.00 a.m. and the complaint was registered very fast and in a haste manner and by 8.15 a.m. the investigation was completed, this according to the learned counsel is suspicious regarding the accident itself. 12. It is further vehemently contended that insofar as the award of the compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has erroneously considered Exs.P.9, P.10, P.11, and 19 the pay slips to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/-per month without considering the fact that the claimant has not examined the author of the said documents and thus, the income arrived by the Tribunal is without considering that the said documents have been created. It is further stated that the future prospects that has to be added is 25% as the deceased was self-employed and not 30% as taken by the Tribunal. It is also stated that the reduction of 1/4th by the Tribunal towards personal expenses is not as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ] (Sarla Verma), as the deceased was survived by only three members i.e., the first wife and two children and not the second wife and another son through second wife and thus would contend that the reductions to be taken is 1/3rd as the dependants are three in number. The learned counsel urging these grounds sought to allow the appeal. 13. The learned counsel urging these grounds sought to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, Smt. Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants would strongly contend that the Corporation could not find fault with the investigation having been done promptly by the police and would contend that the contention of the Corporation that the complaint being registered and the entire investigation done in two hours cannot be a negative assertion but has to be taken positively as the efforts made by the police needs to be appreciated and the contention of the Corporation needs to be sidelined. It is further contended that the Ex.P.4 -the Sketch relied by the Corporation to contend that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be found in the said document as Ex.P.4 on the other hand, depicts only the place of the accident and the vehicle coming and nothing more than that. According to learned counsel, Ex.P.4 – the sketch and Ex.P.5 – the MV report would clearly negative the contention of the Corporation. It is further stated that the evidence of RW.1 is contrary to the material on record as there are contradictory statement and discrepancy in the evidence of RW.1. It is also stated that PW.3 is an eye witness to the said accident and has clearly stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and in light of the documents and evidence, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the BMTC-Corporation for the negligence on the part of the driver. It is further contended insofar quantum of compensation is concerned, the documents produced at Exs.P.9, 10, 11 and 19 clearly establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/-as a Project Manager and same has been stated by PW.2 – the Assistant General Manager of Vastu Properties and stating these grounds, the learned counsel for the claimants sought to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: “1. Whether the BMTC-corporation has made out a case for exoneration of liability on the ground that the driver of the BMTC bus was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle? 2. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: “1. Whether the BMTC-corporation has made out a case for exoneration of liability on the ground that the driver of the BMTC bus was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle? 2. Whether the BMTC-Corporation has made out a case for reduction of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?” Re: POINT NO.1: 15. The undisputed facts are that the accident occurred on 12.07.2015 and due to the impact of the accident the deceased Pattabiraman succumbed to the injuries on spot. It is also not in dispute that the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for compensation. The present appeal is preferred by the BMTC-Corporation challenging the liability having fastened upon the Corporation for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC Bus. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation, it is contended that as per Ex.P.4-the Sketch would evidence that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. On such contention raised by the learned counsel for the BMTC-Corporation, this Court has perused Ex.P.4 – the Sketch, which nowhere evidence the fact as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation. It only refers to the place of accident and the vehicle coming from either side. Ex.P.5 – is the Motor Vehicle Accident Report and as per Column No.6, which reads as under: “6. Mechanical Condition of the Vehicle : Damages I) KA01-F-4296 Scratch mark found on Right side body II) KA51 EN 7029 Scratch mark found on Left side body.” 16. It is evident from Ex.P.5 that the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296 had damages to the right side of the body and the motor cycle had damaged to the left side of the body and thus what could be gathered is that the vehicle dashed the motorcycle and due to the which, the deceased fell down and the right side of the wheel ran over the head of the deceased. The BMTC-Corporation has contended in their objections as well as before this Court that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider i.e., the deceased while he was overtaking the bus from the wrong side and with fear on seeing the oncoming vehicles from the opposite side, fell on the road, this statement of the BMTC-Corporation is contrary to the evidence of RW.1-the driver of the BMTC bus, who has categorically stated in an unequivocable terms that at the time of the accident i.e., 7.00 a.m. on the accident road, there was no much traffic as the accident occurred during the early hours. 17. It is also necessary to consider the evidence of claimant No.1 – the first wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and in her cross-examination denied the question put forth by the BMTC-Corporation that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased while overtaking the bus. The claimants examined one Kumar .B, S/o Beliappa PW.3 -the eye witness to the accident, who lodged the complaint before the Madiwala Traffic Police regarding the occurrence of the accident and the negligence solely attributing on the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296. PW.3 has categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased was proceeding in the same direction as the BMTC bus and the driver of the BMTC bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the right side of the bumper of the BMTC bus dashed the motorcycle and due to which, the deceased came under the wheels of the BMTC bus and the bus ran over the deceased’s head. PW.3 the eye witness stood the test of cross-examination by the BMTC-Corporation and specifically stated that the bumper of the bus dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and the fact of the accident was evidenced by him when he was standing about 10 to 15 feet abutting the right side of the BMTC bus. PW.3 the eye witness to the accident has categorically stated about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and the said statement of PW.3 needs to be believed as he is not an interested witness nor there is any relation between PW.3 and the deceased. 18. PW.3 the eye witness to the accident has categorically stated about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and the said statement of PW.3 needs to be believed as he is not an interested witness nor there is any relation between PW.3 and the deceased. 18. The driver of the BMTC bus though tried to put out the contention about the rash and negligent riding of the deceased and that same was sought to be reported before the police by filing a complaint but the same was refused to be received by the police. If this contention of RW.1 is accepted, there ought to be some documents forthcoming, atleast a copy of the complaint having been submitted before the police and even assuming the police has refused to take the complaint, the driver had many options like approaching the higher authority for filing the complaint or could have even filed complaint through online. Having not done and not taking steps for filing complaint against the deceased for rash and negligent riding of the deceased, the said contention is not acceptable, on the other hand, RW.1 the driver of the BMTC bus has categorically admitted about the registration of the criminal case by the police and filing of charge sheet against RW.1 and also admitted that there is no appeal or revision preferred by the driver before any Court of law. In light of the documents at Ex.P.1-FIR, Ex.P.2-the complaint, Ex.P.3-the spot panchanama, Ex.P.4-the spot hand sketch Ex.P.5-MVI report, Ex.P.6-the PM Report, Ex.P.7-the inquest, Ex.P.8-the charge sheet and the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and RW.1 the contention raised by the BMTC-Corporation that the accident occurred due to the fear and panic of the deceased while overtaking the BMTC Bus and seeing the vehicles from the opposite side the deceased fell on his own is not acceptable and the exhibits stated supra are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296. It is also relevant to state here that the learned counsel for the BMTC-Corporation tried to contend that the procedure in registering the complaint and investigating the accident was done in a hurried manner and the same creates suspicion is not acceptable for the reason that PW.3, who was an eye witness to the accident has immediately filed a complaint and the police authorities taking note of the accident and the death of Pattabiraman has taken cognizance immediately and the same cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 framed for consideration in the Negative and against the BMTC-Corporation. Re: POINT No.2: 19. The learned counsel for the BMTC sought to contend that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per month, taking into consideration Exs.P.9, P.10, P.11 and P.19 the pay slips and the statement of the bank, this according to the learned counsel was created and without examining the author of the said documents. Whereas, the documents produced by the claimants and the evidence of PW.2 the Assistant General Manager of Vastu Properties clearly establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/-per month. Ex.P.9 – is the letter of Employment issued by the Vastu Properties, wherein the deceased Pattabiraman was given an appointment letter dated 09.10.2014 and the salary that he was entitled for Rs.6.00 lakhs per annum. Ex.P.10 – Pay Slips, which are four in number for the period of March, April, May and June 2015, and the earnings depicted in the pay slips is Rs.50,000/-and deducting Rs.1,942/-the net salary is shown as Rs.48,058/-. Ex.P.11 is the statement of account of the Karnataka Bank of the deceased and on 06.01.2015 an amount of Rs.41,265/-, 05.02.2015 Rs.49,800/-, 05.03.2015 Rs.49,800/-, 09.04.2015 Rs.48,058/-, 06.05.2015 Rs.43,124/-, 08.06.2015 Rs.49,778/-were credited to the account by way of salary through NEFT Payment from Vastu Properties. In order to substantiate that the deceased was earning in an around Rs.50,000/-per month the claimants also examined PW.2 -the Assistant General Manager of Vastu Properties, who was given an authorization letter by the partner of the Vastu Properties to give evidence on their behalf in the claim petition. The witness PW.2 has categorically stated the deceased Pattabiraman was working as a Project Manger (construction) as permanent employee and was drawing gross salary of Rs.50,000/-at the time of the accident. The witness PW.2 has categorically stated the deceased Pattabiraman was working as a Project Manger (construction) as permanent employee and was drawing gross salary of Rs.50,000/-at the time of the accident. PW.2 has also stood the cross-examination and has stated in unequivocal terms about the joining of the company by the deceased and that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/-per month. Thus, the contention of the BMTC-Corporation that the deceased was not earning Rs.50,000/-per month is not justifiable for the reason stated supra. However, the Tribunal while taking the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-per month at the time of the accident has not considered the deductions that needs to be deducted in accordance with law. If the income of the deceased as stated in EX.P.9 Rs.6,00,000/-is taken per annum, upto Rs.2,50,000/-is the Income Tax Slab and the taxable income for Rs.3,50,000/-needs to be calculated and income tax during 20142015 is 10% and deductions under Income Tax is Rs.35,000/-per annum and professional tax is Rs.200/-per month x 12 Rs.2,400/-per annum. Thus the total deduction from the annual income of the deceased is Rs.37,400/-. Thus the income that the deceased would earn per annum is Rs.5,62,600/- (6,00,000 – 37,400) and income per month of the deceased would come to Rs.46,883/-. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the income per month of the deceased to be taken at Rs.46,883/-as against Rs.50,000/-taken by the Tribunal. 20. Though the learned counsel for the BMTC – Corporation sought to contend that the future prospects taken by the Tribunal at 30% is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court contending that the deceased was self-employed and not a permanent employee and thus, 25% needs to be added towards future prospects. The said contention cannot accepted in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] (Pranay Sethi), wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that if the deceased was 40-50 years and permanent employee, the future prospects that needs to be added is 30%. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased was aged about 47 years and the permanent employee as per Ex.P.9 and as per the evidence of PW.2. Thus the future prospects to be added is 30%. 21. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased was aged about 47 years and the permanent employee as per Ex.P.9 and as per the evidence of PW.2. Thus the future prospects to be added is 30%. 21. The learned counsel for the BMTC-Corporation also sought to contend that the deductions arrived by the Tribunal deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma as the dependants are three in number and the personal expenses to be deducted is 1/3rd. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the second wife and the child through the second wife are not dependants and are not entitled for the compensation. The Apex Court in the case of N. Jayashree Vs. Cholamandalam [ AIR 2021 SC 5218 ] (Jayashree) has held at paragraph No.14, 15 and 17 as under: “14. The MV Act does not define the term ‘legal representative’. Generally, ‘legal representative’ means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A ‘legal representative’ may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased. A legal heir may also be a legal representative. 15. Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term ‘legal representative’ as under: “Legal Representative” means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.” 17. It is settled that percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application. It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased. In some cases, the father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father. It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased. In some cases, the father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father. The percentage of deduction for personal expenditure, thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 22. In the present case PW.1 the first wife of the deceased has categorically stated that the claimants are dependant upon the deceased and when the first wife itself does not dispute the relationship of claimant No.4 – Smt. Kamakshi .P with that of the deceased and in view of the fact that the claimants were residing together and were dependant on the deceased and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jayashree’s case we are of the considered view that the second wife and the child through second wife needs to be considered as dependants and are entitled for compensation. Thus the deduction of 1/4th arrived by the Tribunal is justifiable. 23. Thus the loss of dependency that the claimants would be entitled to is income of the deceased is Rs.46,883/-adding 30% (towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi Rs.14,064.9/-) comes to Rs.60,948/-deducting 1/4th the income arrived is Rs.45,711/-. The deceased was aged about 47 years and the multiplier applicable is 13. Thus the loss of dependency that the claimants are entitled is Rs.71,30,916/- (45,711 x 12 x 13). 24. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court consistently in the accident cases has been awarding interest @ 6% per annum. The interest over and above 6% would be in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the awarding of the interest by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced to 6%. 25. The interest over and above 6% would be in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the awarding of the interest by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced to 6%. 25. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation under the head loss of consortium, love and affection, towards funeral expenses and towards loss of estate has not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others [ AIR 2020 SC 3076 ] and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Others [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ]. Thus the award of compensation by the Tribunal needs to be reassessed. Accordingly, point No.2 framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative in favour of the BMTC-Corporation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of compensation is reassessed and the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation as under: Loss of dependency 71,30,916.00 Loss of filial and spousal consortium (40000 x 5) 2,00,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Towards Funeral expenses and obsequies ceremony 15,000.00 Total 73,60,916.00 26. The claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.73,60,916/- as against Rs.79,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 27. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the BMTC-Corporation is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.73,60,916/- as against Rs.79,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. (iii) BMTC-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.73,60,916/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The amount in deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. (v) The release, deposit and apportionment would be as per the order of the Tribunal. (vi) The trial Court record to be transmitted to the concerned Court forthwith. No order as to costs.