JUDGMENT B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J. - This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 10.07.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.494/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,59,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Nagulapalli Naga Raju, 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.8,00,000/- on account of the death of Nagulapalli Naga Raju, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.05.2012. 4. The facts would show that on 14.05.2012 at about 02.00 p.m. the deceased Nagulapalli Naga Raju went to jute mill to attend his duty, and at about 10.00 p.m. he got down from duty and proceeding along with co-workers to their village on their respective cycles, and the deceased was pedalling his cycle, proceeding extremely left side of the road, reached near Komadavole old toll gate, Komadavole Panchayat, Eluru Mandal, at about 11.00 p.m., at that time APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3920 coming from Eluru side, proceeding towards Tadepalligudem side, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased cycle from behind, thereby, the deceased fell down on road along with cycle, and the RTC bus tyres ran over the head of deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple bleeding injuries all over his body and died on the spot. The deceased is working in Sri Krishna Jute Mill in Winding Department and used to earn an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month towards wages. The petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners are unable to eke out their livelihood and suffering a lot of mental agony. The 1st respondent is driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3930 and the 2nd respondent is owner of the vehicle. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners are unable to eke out their livelihood and suffering a lot of mental agony. The 1st respondent is driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3930 and the 2nd respondent is owner of the vehicle. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 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 accident occurred only due to wrong peddling of the cycle by the deceased and the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. The petitioners have to prove the age and income of deceased. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. 6. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z 3930 by the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 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-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, 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 to 3, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,59,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents No.1 and 2. 10. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding 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. 11. 10. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding 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. 11. The contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal basing on the evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APRTC bus driver; The Tribunal awarded compensation as per law, and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. 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 and negligence driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28Z 3930? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT No.1: The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged around 28 years, and he was working in Sri Krishna Jute Mill and earning Rs.7,500/- per month towards wages. While so, on 14.05.2012 at about 02.00 p.m. he went to duty as usual and returning to home on his cycle, and when he reached a place near Komadavolu old toll gate, Komadavole Panchayat, Eluru Mandal, at about 11.00 p.m., APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3930 driven by the 1st respondent, who is driver of the APSRTC bus, came behind in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn at high speed and dashed the cycle from its back, the deceased fell down on the road along with cycle and APSRTC bus tyres ran over the head of deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained severe multiple bleeding injuries and died on the spot. 14. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. 15. The claimants in order to establish their case, examined the 1st petitioner as P.W-1 and filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-4 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 the 1st respondent, and as a result, the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Ex.A-2 is copy of M.V.I.Report, Ex.A-3 copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A-2 is copy of M.V.I.Report, Ex.A-3 copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A-3 copy of post mortem certificate shows that the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries and the reason for death is due to crush injury on head. 16. The claimants have examined one V.Ramesh, as P.W-2. His evidence would establish that he is an eye witness to the accident, and that the accident occurred due to rash driving of the APSRTC bus driver, though the deceased was proceeding on extreme left side of the road. The appellant did not elicit any material fact to probable its plea that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased. The appellant did not examine its driver to speak about the way in which the accident occurred. In the light of these facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal, as evidence placed before the Tribunal would establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. 17. POINT No.2: The case of the claimants is that the 1st claimant is wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased and 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased, and all of them are dependants on the deceased. The claimants contend that the deceased was working in Winding Department in Sri Krishna Jute Mill, and used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month towards wages. The appellant in its counter denied the said contention of the claimants. 18. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence of the wife of deceased, who was examined as P.W-1 and evidence of P.W-3, who is working as Personnel Officer in Sri Krishna Jute Mill and considering Ex.A-5 salary certificate, issued by Sri Krishna Jute Mill, held that it would be reasonable to take Rs.200/- per day as income of the deceased, and after excluding Sundays and other holidays in the month, arrived his monthly income at Rs.4,800/- per month, and annual income at Rs.57,600/-. 19. The evidence of P.W-3 would show that he is working as Personnel Officer in Sri Krishna Jute Mill at Eluru for the last 15 years, and he was authorised to give evidence by Director of the said mill, which is placed as Ex.X-1 before the Tribunal. 19. The evidence of P.W-3 would show that he is working as Personnel Officer in Sri Krishna Jute Mill at Eluru for the last 15 years, and he was authorised to give evidence by Director of the said mill, which is placed as Ex.X-1 before the Tribunal. He deposed that the deceased was working as a Winder in the mill since 02.05.2012, and he was paid Rs.7,000/- per month as Winder, and initially the deceased joined as Badli Worker and later basing on his performance, he was regularized in services, and Ex.A-5 was issued by the said mill and Ex.X-2 contains the details of wages paid to the deceased. 20. In the cross-examination of the appellant, it was elicited that the deceased was joined in the mill on 02.05.2012 with token No.390189 and he was piece rated worker and the mill used to pay wages to the deceased on the quantity of production produced by him and basic wages for piece rate for 8 days given to the deceased is @ Rs.400.58 paise, and depending on the working days of the deceased, he may get approximately Rs.7,000/- per month, and the said amount may vary depending on his working hours. 21. Against the said evidence of P.W-3, the appellant did not adduce any contra evidence. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day and fixed his monthly salary at Rs.4,800/-, excluding Sundays or any other holidays in a month. It is pertinent to note down that the evidence of P.W-3 as elicited in the cross-examination would establish that depending on the working days of the deceased, he may get approximately Rs.7,000/- per month, and the said amount may vary depending on his working hours. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that his monthly income would be fixed at Rs.4,800/- after excluding Sundays or any other holidays in a month, is devoid of any merit. 22. P.W-3 evidence would establish that the deceased would get around Rs.7,000/- per month depending upon wages. The Tribunal fixed his daily income at Rs.200/-, it means that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/-, which is less than the amount deposed by P.W-3, which is at Rs.7,000/- after excluding holidays. Therefore, in the light of the said circumstances, the Tribunal should not have reduce the amount to Rs.4,800/- per month from Rs.6,000/- by excluding the amount towards wages. The Tribunal fixed his daily income at Rs.200/-, it means that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/-, which is less than the amount deposed by P.W-3, which is at Rs.7,000/- after excluding holidays. Therefore, in the light of the said circumstances, the Tribunal should not have reduce the amount to Rs.4,800/- per month from Rs.6,000/- by excluding the amount towards wages. As the amount deposed by P.W-3 and found in Ex.A-5 is the amount paid to the deceased for working days only. In that view of the matter, the monthly income of the deceased shall be considered as Rs.6,000/- per month, and therefore, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/-. 23. There are four dependants in the case. Hence, in the view of the 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 , 1/4th amount shall be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased, which would be Rs.72,000 - 18,000 = Rs.54,000/-. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 28 years as per Ex.A-3 post mortem certificate. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is 17' as per the above judgment, for the age group of 26 to 30 years. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.54,000 x 17 = Rs.9,18,000/-. 24. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and the total compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.9,18,000 + 70,000/- = Rs.9,88,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,59,400/-towards just compensation. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, is devoid of any merit. 25. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. I do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Ho'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 26. POINT No.3: To what relief? Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 26. 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. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 10.07.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.494/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.