JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claimants and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 1397 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimants filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Nuthangi Srinivasa Rao, who is husband of 1st claimant, father of 2nd claimant and son of claimant Nos.3 and 4, in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 09.06.2007. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the claimants are as follows: On 09.06.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 7S 7312 on Amaravathi road, Guntur, along with his wife as a pillion rider, and when they reached near Ala Hospital, Guntur, a Mini City Bus of the 1st respondent bearing registration No. AP 7X 9981 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind them and hit the motor cycle. Consequently, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The S.H.O. Arundalpet (L&O) P.S. Guntur registered a case against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending bus. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and the driver of the bus was not at fault. 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini City Bus bearing No. AP 7X 9981 by its driver? 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini City Bus bearing No. AP 7X 9981 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent’s bus driver alone and accordingly, granted a sum of Rs.13,15,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsels for both parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and the Tribunal also failed to apply the correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased. 12. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the Act whereunder the petitioner need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the claimants examined P.W.1. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased and an eye witness to the accident. P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that on 09.06.2007 when she was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by her husband on Amaravathi road, the offending bus being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from back side and hit the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. To rebut the same, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company failed to examine at least the driver of the bus to give evidence as he is the best person to speak about the manner of accident. The claimants also relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report, Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3-certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4-certified copy of post mortem report and Ex.A.5-certified copy of M.V.I. report. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5 clearly proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Sri Chaitanya Educational institutions, Guntur and Ex.A.7 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Apollo Competition College, Guntur. Ex.A.6 shows that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- and Ex.A.7 shows that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.10,000/-. As per the evidence of P.W.2, previously he worked as Principal of N.R.I. College, Guntur, and during his tenure, the deceased used to work as Lecturer in Physics in that college and he issued Ex.A.6-salary certificate. Per contra, the evidence of P.W.3, Principal of Apollo Competition College, Guntur, reveals that the deceased used to take classes for Intermediate and Degree students in his college during morning and evening hours and he was paying Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the deceased. But, no corroborative evidence was filed by P.W.3 to show that their college used to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the deceased towards the classes attended by him for Intermediate and Degree students. But, the fact remains is that the deceased was a qualified Lecturer in Physics. As per Ex.A.6 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, the monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the salary of the deceased is Rs.7,500/- p.m. on the date of accident and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.90,000/-. As per Ex.A.6 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, the monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the salary of the deceased is Rs.7,500/- p.m. on the date of accident and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.90,000/-. If 1/3rd from out of the annual income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.60,000/- (Rs.90,000/- - Rs.30,000/-). The deceased was aged about 33 years as on the date of accident. So, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “17”, as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.10,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 17). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses. There is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal with regard to awarding of compensation under the conventional heads. Therefore, in total, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,55,000/-. 15. Learned standing counsel for the appellant/Insurance company fairly represented before the Court that there are no violations in the policy and the offending bus of the 1st respondent was insured with the appellant/Insurance company and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 1397 of 2008 is modified by reducing the compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.10,55,000/-. The 1st claimant/wife is entitled to Rs.5,55,000/- the 2nd claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- the 3rd claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and the 4th claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw her share of compensation amount along with total costs and interest and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are also entitled to withdraw their respective shares of compensation amounts along with interest. The compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with proportionate interest payable to the 2nd claimant shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank until he attains majority and after attaining majority, he is entitled to withdraw the same along with interest thereon. No order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.