JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is 3rd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 in M.V.O.P. No. 1330 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. The claim petitioners filed cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition. 3. The claim petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Veerni Veera Venkata Satya Appalaswamy, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and son of petitioner Nos.3 & 4, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.06.2009. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows: On 17.06.2009 the deceased was proceeding to Madugula on a motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 9P 2808 and when he reached Peda Maduvu, Gajapathi Nagaram near Chodavaram at about 11.30 a.m., a bus bearing registration No. AP 31Y 7899 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries and died on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner, the 3rd respondent is insurer and the 4th respondent is hirer of the offending bus. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte. 6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is pleaded by the 4th respondent/APSRTC that the driver of the offending bus was not employed by the 4th respondent and thereby, there is no master and servant relationship between the driver of the offending bus and the 4th respondent. It is also pleaded that the bus was taken on hire for a limited period under a hire agreement and as per the terms of the hire agreement, the owner of the bus is completely responsible for any claim in case of any accident involved by the hired bus and the 3rd respondent being insurer of the offending bus is liable for payment of the compensation. 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether Veerni Veera Venkata Satya Appalaswamy died in a motor accident that occurred on 17.06.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of RTC hired bus bearing No. AP 31Y 7899 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and, accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Questioning the legal validity of the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal, while the petitioners filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. Questioning the legal validity of the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal, while the petitioners filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the owner of the offending bus should not be held liable, as the bus was under hire with the 4th respondent/APSRTC at the relevant point of time and the monthly income arrived at by the Tribunal is on high side. 12. Learned counsel for the cross objectors/petitioners contended that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation under various heads claimed by the petitioners. 13. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 14. POINTS 1 & 2: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC hired bus, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.1 to 3 are not eye witnesses to the accident. P.W.4 claimed to be the witness to the accident. He deposed in his evidence that on 17.06.2009 he was coming from Anakapalle to Chodavaram at about 11.30 a.m. and when he reached Gajapathinagaram Junction, there is a deep curve and the road is very narrow with trees on either side and the same is a single road and at that time, the APSRTC hired bus came from Chodavaram to Anakapalle at a speed of 70 to 80 kms. and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, who is coming from Anakapalle to Chodavaram, as a result, the deceased fell down and his skull was broken. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put to him that due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased the said accident occurred and there is no fault on the part of the driver of the offending bus. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.1-attested copy of first information report, Ex.A.2-attested copy of post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.3-attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A.1 goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.1-attested copy of first information report, Ex.A.2-attested copy of post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.3-attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A.1 goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. Ex.A.2 goes to show that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage with head injury. Ex.A.3 discloses that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the offending bus. The evidence of P.W.4 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.3 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC hired bus resulting in the accident. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence on record, also came to the same conclusion. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is wife, the 2nd petitioner is minor son, and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are parents of the deceased, the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and he worked as an Assistant Typist-cum-Computer Operator in Chartered Constructions at Khammam and was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. As per Ex.A.2-post mortem report and Ex.A.9-inquest report, the deceased was aged about 35 years. But, as per the material on record reveals that the deceased was aged 40 years 11 months and 16 days i.e., the deceased was aged 40 years by the date of accident. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners relied on Ex.A.7-salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Chartered Constructions, Khammam. But, the petitioners failed to examine the person, who issued Ex.A.7-salary certificate, as a witness. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. 16. Since the authenticity of Ex.A.7-salary certificate is not proved by the petitioners by examining the person, who issued that certificate, as a witness before the Tribunal and since the occupation of the deceased was Assistant Typist-cum-Computer Operator, I am of the considered view that it is desirable to arrive the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 25% from out of annual income has to be added towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-). The dependents on the deceased are four in number. So, 1/4th from out of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Having deducted as such, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.1,01,250/- (Rs.1,35,000/- - Rs.33,750/-). As stated supra, the deceased was aged 40 years and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “15”, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (4) SCJ 91 and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.15,18,750/- (Rs.1,01,250/- x multiplier ‘15’). In addition to that, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,88,750/- towards compensation. 17. It is not in dispute by both sides that the offending bus was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident, the offending bus was given on hire to the 4th respondent/APSRTC, and the driver of the offending bus was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal rightly fixed the liability on the 3rd respondent/Insurance company. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance company is dismissed. The cross objections filed by the cross objectors/petitioners are allowed in part by enhancing the compensation of Rs.15,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,88,750/-. The petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.68,750/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal. The cross objections filed by the cross objectors/petitioners are allowed in part by enhancing the compensation of Rs.15,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,88,750/-. The petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.68,750/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.68,750/- along with interest before the Tribunal within two (2) months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, is entitled to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.