JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 17.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.15/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.1,48,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioner/claimant, for the death of Teppala Narayanamma, 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.1,50,000/- on account of the death of Teppala Narayanamma, who is the mother of the petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.05.2013. 4. The facts would show that on 27.05.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased Teppala Narayanamma returning to home from Jami Yellamma temple situated near her house, while she was walking on the left side of the road margin, the 1st respondent, who was the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 4663, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Sompeta Bus Stand towards Baruva, and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple fracture injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital, Sompeta and admitted there as in-patient. Due to lack of treatment in the said hospital, the deceased was referred to RIMS General Hospital, Sirakulam. The deceased died on the way to the said hospital, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Station House Officer, Sompeta P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.22/2013 and after investigation filed charge sheet. The petitioner performed the funeral ceremony and spent Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. The deceased T.Narayanamma was working as a labourer and getting Rs.6,000/- per month and used to give her entire earnings to the petitioner for her family maintenance. The deceased T.Narayanamma is aged 70 years at the time of death. Due to death of deceased, the petitioner suffered mental agony. 5. The deceased T.Narayanamma was working as a labourer and getting Rs.6,000/- per month and used to give her entire earnings to the petitioner for her family maintenance. The deceased T.Narayanamma is aged 70 years at the time of death. Due to death of deceased, the petitioner suffered mental agony. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent filed written statement resisting, 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 the 1st respondent is having valid driving license and expert driver and took all steps to avoid the accident. The driver of the bus drove the said bus in a slowly, the deceased herself fell down on road, due to traffic and received injuries. Bus did not hit the deceased. The petitioner is not a dependent on the deceased. She is not entitled for any compensation. The 1st respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/R-1 of RTC bus driver employee No.775836? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, D.W-1 was examined and no documents were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,48,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents. 9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the bus driver, examined as R.W-1 and thereby came to an erroneous finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver. 9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the bus driver, examined as R.W-1 and thereby came to an erroneous finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver. The other contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, without any evidence. 10. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP11Z 4663? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: It is the case of the claimant that the deceased Teppala Narayanamma, is mother of the claimant, and aged around 75 years, living with the claimant and doing coolie work contributing income to the family of the claimant. While so, on 27.05.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. she went to Yellamma Temple located near her house and returning to home walking on the left side of the road margin. APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 4663 driven by R.W-1 came behind her in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the deceased, as a result, she fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries to both legs. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Sompet and later to RIMS General Hospital, Srikakulam. She died on the way to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. 12. Basing on the statement of deceased, Sompet Police registered a case in Cr.No.22/2013 under Ex.A-1 FIR placed before the Court. They investigated the crime and after conclusion of investigation laid police report (charges sheet) for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against R.W-1 under Ex.A-5 copy of charge sheet placed before the Court. 13. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC as well as R.W-1 i.e., driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z 4663 is that the deceased while walking on the road, fell down due to traffic and sustained injuries. The bus did not dash the deceased. Therefore, the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of R.W-1. 14. The claimant in order to prove her case, examined herself as P.W-1. The bus did not dash the deceased. Therefore, the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of R.W-1. 14. The claimant in order to prove her case, examined herself as P.W-1. During her evidence, she filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-5 copy of police report (charge sheet), where under, the police after investigation opined that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.W-1, and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries to both her legs and subsequently died due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is an admitted fact that R.W-1 did not present any report to police stating that the deceased fell due to traffic and sustained injuries. Ex.A-2 is copy of M.V.I.Report, Ex.A-3 copy of post mortem certificate and Ex.A-4 is copy of inquest report. Ex.A-3 copy of post mortem certificate shows that both legs of deceased were fractured and they are ante mortem injuries and the reason for death is shock and haemorrhage due to the fracture of both legs. The panchayatdars in Ex.A-4 opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. 15. The claimant in support of her contention examined an eye witness, who was cited as L.W-3 in Ex.A-4 police report (charge sheet) by the police. He deposed that while the deceased was walking on the margin of the road, the bus came behind her in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, and as a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. In the cross-examination of P.W-2, the appellant/APSRTC suggested that the deceased fell down due to traffic and sustained injuries, he denied the same as not true. The evidence elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-2 shows that the road on which the accident occurred is not developed and it is a narrow road. Therefore, there would not be any heavy traffic as contended by the appellant/APSRTC. 16. R.W-1, in the cross-examination admitted that he did not give any report to the police soon after the accident, and further, the police investigated about the crime and laid police report (charge sheet) for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against him on the ground that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. 16. R.W-1, in the cross-examination admitted that he did not give any report to the police soon after the accident, and further, the police investigated about the crime and laid police report (charge sheet) for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against him on the ground that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. In the light of above facts and circumstances, which would establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.W-1, the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. 17. POINT No.2: The claimant as P.W-1 in her evidence categorically stated that the deceased is her mother and the deceased is living with P.W-1 and her husband. Further, the deceased was doing coolie work and contributing the income for the maintenance of the family of P.W-1. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-1 to disbelieve the said statement of P.W-1. No contra evidence was produced by the appellant/APSRTC to prove that the deceased was not contributing anything to the family of the claimant. 18. The Tribunal upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, though the claimant contended that she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It means that the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased around Rs.70/- only per day. The deceased is a resident of Sompet, which is a Town in Srikakulam District. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month. 19. The Tribunal following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , deducted 1/3 of income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier ‘5’, considering the age of deceased as 75 years, and thereby the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the amount awarded towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal. 20. The other heads under which the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are: Rs.45,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- towards attendant and transport charges. 21. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the amount awarded towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal. 20. The other heads under which the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are: Rs.45,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- towards attendant and transport charges. 21. It is an admitted fact that soon after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sompet and later to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam and on the way she died. Therefore, the claimant would incur some amount towards medical expenditure, transport charges. Hence, awarding a sum of Rs.3,500/- in all for medical, attendant and transport charges cannot be held as excessive amount. 22. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that awarding Rs.45,000/- towards love and affection is against the principles of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is true that as per principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is true that the claimant is not entitled to any amount for pain and suffering in a claim for death. 23. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down that as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 , the deceased being the mother of the claimant, the claimant can be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. If that amount is also taken into consideration, a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards just compensation, cannot be held as excessive amount. 24. The claimant is entitled to interest on Rs.1,48,500/- 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. 25. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 25. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 17.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.15/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.