JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 08.01.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.591/2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Nellore, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Padarthi Rathnam, in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-on account of the death of Padarthi Rathnam, who is the father of the petitioners No.1 to 4, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.04.2016. 4. The facts show that the deceased Padarthi Rathnam was aged 56 years, worked as Driver in APSRTC Kavali Depot. His wife predeceased him. He used to earn Rs.30,000/-per month and contributing the same to the petitioners. On 25.04.2016 at about 10.30 p.m. on completion of duty in APSRTC Kavali Depot, deceased boarded bus No.AP 26Z 0176 of 1st respondent in order to go to Rajupalem, and at about 11.00 p.m., the said bus reached opposite Babul Reddy Dhaba at Gowravaram Village on National High Way No.5, and at that time, the 2nd respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, and hit the bus on rear side of a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148, and as a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries, apart from one passenger by name Paddiga Venkatesh died instantaneously on the spot. The said accident was reported in Kavali Rural Police Station and a case in Cr.No.84/2016 was registered against the 2nd respondent. The accident resulting the death of deceased took place, due to rash and negligent act of the 2nd respondent/driver in driving the bus of 1st respondent/APSRTC, during the course of his employment and thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners. 5. The accident resulting the death of deceased took place, due to rash and negligent act of the 2nd respondent/driver in driving the bus of 1st respondent/APSRTC, during the course of his employment and thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners. 5. Before, the Tribunal, the 1strespondent/APSRTC filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that at the time of accident, the offending bus bearing No.AP 26Z 0176 was operating from Vijayawada to Nellore, and at about 11.00 p.m. reached opposite Babul Reddy Dhaba at Gowravaram Village, and at that time, lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148 was stationed on left side of metal road, without placing boulders and indicators, and at the same time, there was a burst in front left side tyre of the bus No.AP 26Z 0176 of the 1st respondent, and due to that the accident took place, and there is no rash and negligence of the 2nd respondent in taking place of the accident, and the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148 are necessary parties to the claim petition. The 2ndrespondent adopted the written statement of the 1st respondent. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Padarthi Rathnam, S/o.Aseervadam died in the accident occurred on 25.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of driver/R-2 of RC Bus bearing No.AP 26Z 0176? 2. Whether the insurer and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148 are proper and necessary parties to the petition? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the2ndrespondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.X-1 to X-3were marked. 8. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the2ndrespondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.X-1 to X-3were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3,corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents 1 and 2. 9. This appeal is filed by the APSRTC against the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Nellore. 10. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148. The further contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-towards compensation without any legal evidence. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence to R.W-1, who was the driver of APSRTC bus involved in the accident, and came to an erroneous opinion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the evidence of R.W-1 would establish that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148, which was stopped on the road, without any single light or indicators, and due to the burst of tyre of APSRTC bus and darkness, the accident occurred and therefore, the owner of the lorry, and the insurer of the lorry are necessary parties to the claim petition. He further submits that the Tribunal without any legal evidence awarded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-towards compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. 12. He further submits that the Tribunal without any legal evidence awarded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-towards compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit per contra that the Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W-3, who is an eye witness to the accident and his testimony was corroborated by the police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-4 rather than the testimony of R.W-1 (R-2), who was arrayed as an accused in the said case, for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code and therefore, no error was committed by the Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and hence, neither the owner nor the insurer of the lorry are necessary parties to the claim petition. He further submits that the Tribunal considering the various principles regarding awarding compensation in a case of death of a person in a motor accident, awarded compensation basing on the salary of the deceased, who was working as a driver in APSRTC and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligence of the driver (R-2) of the appellant/APSRTC? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 14. 13. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligence of the driver (R-2) of the appellant/APSRTC? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 14. POINT No.1: The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 56 years, and working as a driver in APSRTC, Kavali Depot, and on 25.04.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased boarded APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 26Z 0176 and R.W-1 was the driver of the said bus in order to go to Rajupalem and while so, at about 11.00 p.m. when the bus reached a place opposite Babul Reddy Dhaba at Gowravaram Village on National High Way No.5, the driver (R-2) drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and as a result, the dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148 and therefore, the deceased, who was travelling in the bus sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, and it was reported to Kavali Rural Police Station and Police registered a case in Cr.No.84/2016 and investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet) arraying the R.W-1 as an accused, for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, and the claimants, who are children of the deceased filed the claim application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for compensation. 15. The claimants to prove their claim, examined the 1st petitioner as P.W-1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is copy of FIR in 2nd Cr.No.84/2016 of Kavali Rural P.S. registered against the respondent on 26.04.2016. Ex.A-2 copy of inquest report conducted for the death of deceased. Ex.A-3 is copy of post mortem certificate of deceased and Ex.A-4 is copy of police report (charge sheet) filed by the Kavali Rural P.S. against the 2nd respondent for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code. 16. The claimants to prove their case about the way in which the accident occurred, have examined P.W-3, who is an eye witness to the accident. His name was cited as eye witness in Ex.A-4 charge sheet. 16. The claimants to prove their case about the way in which the accident occurred, have examined P.W-3, who is an eye witness to the accident. His name was cited as eye witness in Ex.A-4 charge sheet. P.W-3 evidence would establish that he was travelling in APSRTC bus involved in the accident on 25.04.2016, and at about 11.00 p.m., when the bus reached a place near Babul Reddy Dhaba on N.H.5 road, the driver of the said bus dashed the back side of a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 8148, and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus, as he drove the vehicle very fast, and as result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The appellant in the cross-examination of P.W-3 elicited that P.W-3 also working as a driver in APSRTC Kavali Depot. Nothing was elicited as to why P.W-3 being the driver in APSRTC would depose in favour of the claimants and against R.W-1 who is his colleague driver and his own organisation i.e., appellant in the case. The appellant did not elicit any material fact to probablise its plea that the accident occurred due to negligence of lorry, as it was parked without signal lights. Ex.A-4 is a copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by Kavali Rural Police after conducting investigation about the accident in the case. The police opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of R.W-1 (R-2). Therefore, Ex.A-4 corroborates the testimony of P.W-3 deposed before the Tribunal. 17. R.W-1 being an accused in the case, would speak that the accident not occurred due to his negligence, is a self-serving statement. In the cross-examination, he made an attempt to say that he does not know that a criminal case is pending against him in Court at Kavali, while admitting that charge sheet was filed against him in respect of the accident in the case. This testimony of R.W-1 would establish that he is not interested to depose truth about the way in which the accident occurred, and his intention is only to get out of the criminal case filed against him. In that view of the matter, it can safely be held that the claimants established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., R.W-1 (R-2). In that view of the matter, it can safely be held that the claimants established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., R.W-1 (R-2). Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, this point is answered. 18. POINT No.2: It is an admitted fact that the deceased was working as a driver in appellant/APSRTC, Kavali Depot at the time of accident, and he was aged 56 years at the time of accident. The claimants to establish the income of the deceased, by examining P.W-2, who is working as Senior Assistant in the office of Depot Manager, APSRTC Kavali Depot. He produced Ex.X-2 copy of service register of the deceased, and also salary certificate of the deceased for the month of April 2016, which is placed on record as Ex.X-3, and deposed that as per Ex.X-3, salary of the deceased was Rs.32,993.80 paise for the month of April, 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the annual income of the deceased would be 3,95,916/-, and arrived net salary after deductions of income tax @ 20% at Rs.3,16,733/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the said amount i.e., Rs.1,05,578/-towards personal expenses of the deceased as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s Case. The Tribunal considering the date of birth recorded in the service register (Ex.X-2) of the deceased as 01.01.1959, held that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 57 years 3 months, and applied multiplier ‘9’ as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , though it was not referred in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the loss of dependency arrived by the Tribunal is Rs.19,00,395/-. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of love and affection to the 4th petitioner, who is minor son of the deceased, and another Rs.50,000/-towards loss of estate. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , held that in case of death, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , held that in case of death, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. In the case on hand, the Tribunal did not refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, though the Tribunal delivered the order on 08.01.2018.Therefore, the Tribunal erroneously granted Rs.50,000/-towards loss of love and affection to the 4th claimant and Rs.50,000/-towards loss of estate, instead of Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate to the claimants, who are sons of the deceased. In view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 , the 4th claimant, who was minor at the time of accident and claim petition, is entitled to parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the amounts entitled by the claimants under the heads funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of parental consortium to 4th claimant, would come to Rs.70,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/-has to be deducted from the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs.19,00,395 + 70,000 = Rs.19,70,395/-towards just compensation, instead of Rs.20,00,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.19,70,395/-reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 22. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal, and it is held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,70,395/-(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs, Seventy Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Five only), with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of actual payment, instead of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. The 1st respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.19,70,395/-(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs, Seventy Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Five only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 1st respondent/APSRTC already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,90,395/-(Rupees One Lakh, Ninety Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Five only) and he is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. The 2nd claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,90,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) and he is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. The 3rd claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,90,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) and he is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. The 4th claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.