JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 16.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.135/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,29,800/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the injuries sustained by Tallapudi Murali, 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.15,00,000/-on account of the injuries sustained by Tallapudi Murali, who is the husband of the 2nd petitioner, father of the petitioners No.3 and 4 and son of the 5th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.09.2011. 4. The facts show that the 1st petitioner Tallapudi Murali is aged 39 years, working as mason and earning Rs.300/-per day. On 04.09.2011 when the 1st petitioner was going on cycle by sitting on the carrier to attend his mason work, when they reached near Y.K.M.Colony, Parvathipuram, at about 09.30 a.m., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0518 was driven by the 1st respondent in opposite direction in high speed, rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the cycle, due to which the 1st petitioner fell on road and back wheel of bus ran over the legs of the 1st petitioner. Immediately, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Parvathipuram, and from there to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam and from there, he was shifted to Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where his left leg was amputated below knee and doctors found that he sustained fracture in right tibia and fibula and other minor injuries and he was treated in that hospital as in-patient for 60 days. In this connection, SHO, Parvathipuram Rural P.S. registered FIR in Cr.No.84/2011 U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/-towards transport, medicines, and extra nourishment. The 1st respondent is driver and respondents No.2 and 3 are APSRTC officials and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st petitioner. In this connection, SHO, Parvathipuram Rural P.S. registered FIR in Cr.No.84/2011 U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/-towards transport, medicines, and extra nourishment. The 1st respondent is driver and respondents No.2 and 3 are APSRTC officials and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st petitioner. After examination of the 1st petitioner as P.W-1, he died and thereafter his wife, two children and mother were impleaded as petitioners No.2 to 5 as per orders in I.A.No.105/2015 dated 06.03.2015. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/APSRTC filed counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the injured, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the 1st petitioner and another person, who was peddling the cycle came in opposite direction of bus in high speed without observing the bus and while crossing the speed breaker, the said person lost control over the cycle, as a result, the 1st petitioner, who was sitting on carrier of cycle fell down and cyclist left the cycle and ran away and the 1st petitioner came towards back tyre of the bus in confusion, as a result, his left foot was crushed under the bus tyre and there is mistake on the part of 1st petitioner only. 6. The 2nd respondent filed memo, adopting the counter filed by the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 driver of the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus or that of the rider of the cycle on which the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider or due to his own fault of the petitioner or that of all resulting in injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 9. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,29,800/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the respondents 1 to 3. 10. This is an appeal filed by the claimants assailing the order and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.135/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Parvathipuram. 11. The contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal did not award just compensation by not awarding amount towards medical expenditure, transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. The further contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in not holding that the 1st petitioner died due to injuries sustained in the accident. 12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the deceased, who is original claimant in the case; and he sustained injuries in the accident; and pending claim petition he died due to injuries sustained in the accident; and therefore, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation as a case of death in motor accident. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation by not considering the medical expenditure covered by Ex.A-5 issued by Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, proved by P.W-3; and the Tribunal also did not award proper amount towards transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. 13. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation by not considering the medical expenditure covered by Ex.A-5 issued by Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, proved by P.W-3; and the Tribunal also did not award proper amount towards transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. 13. The learned counsel for respondent/APSRTC per contra contended that there is no evidence on record showing that the death is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the claimants failed to establish their case, and further submits that the deceased, who was examined as P.W-1 before his death, admitted that he was treated in Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, under Arogya Sree Scheme, and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any amount covered by Ex.A-5, and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the death of the deceased is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants? 3. To what relief? 15. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the death of the deceased is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants? 3. To what relief? 15. POINT No.1: It is the case of the appellant/claimants that the deceased-T.Murali (P.W-1) on 04.09.2011 was going on cycle to attend mason work, and when he reached a place near Y.K.M.Colony, Parvathipuram, at about 09.30 a.m., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0518 came in opposite direction in high speed in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and dashed the cycle of the deceased, and as a result, he fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his legs, causing serious injuries and he was immediately shifted to Area Hospital, Parvathipuram, then to King George Hospital at Visakhapatnam, and later to Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and there his left leg was amputated below knee, and he also sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula, and he was treated in the hospital for 60 days, and Parvathipuram Police registered a case in Cr.No.84/2011 U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent/driver of the APSRTC Bus, and later the deceased filed claim petition for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, and in the said case, he also deposed as P.W-1, and subsequently, died on 18.11.2014, and then the appellants who are the dependants of deceased i.e., wife, two sons, daughter and mother impleaded themselves as parties to the proceedings, contending that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident, and sought compensation for the death of deceased, on account of injuries sustained in the accident. 16. The claimants except contending that the deceased died due to amputation on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. They did not file a single document to prove the same. P.W-3, who was doctor of Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, also did not depose any such thing in his testimony before the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 04.09.2011. The deceased died on 18.11.2014. Therefore, the burden is upon the appellants/claimants to establish that the death is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident. P.W-3, who was doctor of Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, also did not depose any such thing in his testimony before the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 04.09.2011. The deceased died on 18.11.2014. Therefore, the burden is upon the appellants/claimants to establish that the death is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellants failed to establish that the death is directly related to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, this point is answered. 17. POINT No.2: The Tribunal upon considering the evidence produced by the claimants held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards pain and suffering or trauma for the injuries sustained by the deceased, since the deceased is no more. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.79,800/-towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment from 04.09.2011 till 18.11.2014 on account of the amputation, and in view of the evidence of P.W-3 that due to amputation, the deceased suffered permanent disability at 70%. As deceased was working as a mason prior to the date of accident, and on account of the amputation, he could not do work from the date of accident, till the date of his death. The Tribunal notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month, considering his income at Rs.100/-per day. 18. The contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.100/-per day only, though he was working as mason at Parvathipuram, which is a town in Vijayanagaram District. The High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Saritha and others Vs. Siva and another in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019, held at para 16 as follows: “Therefore, it may not be possible on some occasions to follow the particular judgment delivered by the High Courts or the Supreme Court. Judgments may be outdated or delivered some years back or the facts and circumstances in that particular judgment may not be much applicable in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019 to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the Courts are bound to consider the judgments with reference to the facts and circumstances as well as the prevailing situation. Judgments may be outdated or delivered some years back or the facts and circumstances in that particular judgment may not be much applicable in C.M.A.No.3567 of 2019 to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the Courts are bound to consider the judgments with reference to the facts and circumstances as well as the prevailing situation. Mechanical approach in application of judgments are also not proper. Thus, for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a particular amount fixed in a particular case need not be passed in a routine manner. Once the facts and circumstances are different, then the yardstick to be adopted also to be different.” 19. Admittedly Parvathipuram is a town in erstwhile Vijayanagaram District. The deceased was working as a mason in Parvathipuram Town. The respondent/APSRTC did not challenge the evidence of P.W-1 or P.W-2 on this aspect. Considering the place of work of the deceased, and nature of work of the deceased, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the year 2011, a mason would get a minimum of Rs.200/-per day. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing only Rs.3,000/-per month towards income of the deceased, instead of Rs.6,000/-per month. Hence, the deceased would be entitled to Rs.6,000 x 38/70 = Rs.1,59,600/-towards loss of earnings by considering the permanent disability at 70% on account of the amputation of his left leg, as deposed by P.W-3. 20. P.W-1 himself admitted that he was treated in Abhaya Critical Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam under Arogya Sree Scheme of the State Government at free of cost. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the amount covered by Ex.A-5, but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards costs of medicines, and Rs.20,000/-towards transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said amounts awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, in all the amount entitled by the claimants would be Rs.1,59,600 + 30,000 + 20,000 = Rs.2,09,600/-, instead of Rs.1,29,600/-awarded by the Tribunal. To that extent, the order and decree of the Tribunal has to be modified. 21. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.2,09,600/-reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. Therefore, in all the amount entitled by the claimants would be Rs.1,59,600 + 30,000 + 20,000 = Rs.2,09,600/-, instead of Rs.1,29,600/-awarded by the Tribunal. To that extent, the order and decree of the Tribunal has to be modified. 21. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.2,09,600/-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. 22. 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. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal, and it is held that the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,09,600/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only), with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of deposit. The respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. The 3rd respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,09,600/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 3rd 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 Appellant/2nd claimant being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to an amount of Rs.52,400/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Four Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The Appellants No.2 and 3/claimants No.3 and 4 being the children of the deceased, are entitled to an amount of Rs.52,400/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Four Hundred only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The Appellants No.2 and 3/claimants No.3 and 4 being the children of the deceased, are entitled to an amount of Rs.52,400/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Four Hundred only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The 4th Appellant/5th claimant, being mother of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.52,400/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Four Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.