JUDGMENT B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J. - This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 29.06.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.191/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the death of Lanka Mani Yesu @ Yesu, 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 death of Lanka Mani Yesu @ Yesu, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.03.2010. 4. The facts would show that their contention is that on 20.03.2010 when the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle at about 07.30 p.m., near Fish Hatcheries Training Centre on N.H.5 Road, Badampudi village, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP27Z 3047 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction, and dashed the deceased, and dragged to some distance causing fatal accident. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, but succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. A case in Cr.No.63/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered in Chebrole Police Station against the 1st respondent and subsequently, he was charge sheeted. The deceased was aged about 27 years, hale and healthy, engaged in gunny bags business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by the date of accident. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost valuable financial support, loss of love and affection. Further, 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 3047 and the 2nd respondent is owner of the vehicle. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Further, 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 3047 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 petitioners ought to have joined the owner and insurance company of the motor cycle, on which the deceased was travelling as they are necessary parties, and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The compensation claimed by the petitioners 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 pleaded accident dated 20.03.2010 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP28Z 3047 by the driver/1st respondent? and whether deceased Lanka Mani Yesu @ Yesu died due to the said accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? if so, to what quantum and what is the liability 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-6. 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-6, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus, 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.7,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents. 10. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident was not 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 accident was not 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 the driver of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal basing on the evidence awarded just compensation, 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 3047? 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 1st claimant is wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are the minor daughters and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The claimants contend that the deceased was travelling on the motor cycle on 20.03.2010 at about 07.30 p.m. and when he reached a place near Fish Hatcheries Training Centre on N.H.5 Road, Badampudi Village, APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3047 driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction, and dashed the motor cycle of deceased and dragged the motor cycle to some distance, and as a result, the deceased suffered severe injuries, and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, and he died while undergoing treatment. Police registered a case in Cr.No.63/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the bus, and after completion of investigation laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the bus, for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, opining that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3047. 14. The claimants in order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, have examined P.W-3. 14. The claimants in order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, have examined P.W-3. His evidence would establish that he is an eye witness to the accident, and further established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3047, as he drove the said bus at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, and as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and later died in the hospital. 15. The appellant did not elicit anything material in the cross-examination of P.W-3 to probable its case that the deceased also contributed to the accident. The appellant did not choose to examine its driver to speak about the way in which the accident occurred. The claimants also filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-4 copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by the police opining that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver. Therefore, the facts and circumstances discussed above would establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, who is driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3047. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this issue. Accordingly, the point is answered. 16. POINT No.2: The Tribunal considering the evidence of the 1st claimant, who is examined as P.W-1, and the evidence of P.W-2, who is employer of the deceased and fixed the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month on the date of accident, though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, working as Sales Manager in Sri Anjaneya Gunny Traders, and relied on the evidence of P.W-2 and Ex.A-6 certificate issued by Sri Anjaneya Gunny Traders about the salary paid to the deceased. Therefore, in the circumstances of the above evidence, If it is considered as Rs.150/- per day, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.150 x 30 = Rs.4,500/-, and the annual income of the deceased is Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. 17. There are four dependents in the case. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. 17. There are four dependents in the case. 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 , 1/4 of income of the deceased shall be deduced towards personal expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal though referred the above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, wrongly deducted 1/3 of income, instead of 1/4 of income. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased after deducting 1/4 of income is Rs.54,000 - 13,500 = Rs.40,500/-. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 26 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 is Rs.40,500 x 17 = Rs.6,88,500/-. 18. 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.6,88,500 + 70,000/- = Rs.7,58,500/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,00,000/-towards just compensation. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, is devoid of any merit. 19. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The accident occurred in the year 2010, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2013, and the A.P.S.R.T.C. without admitting for just, fair and reasonable compensation has been dragging the matter for the last 10 years. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir (2015) 7 SCC 2154 which referred another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 granted interest @ 9% p.a. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. Accordingly, the point is answered. 20. 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. 21. Accordingly, the point is answered. 20. 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. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 29.06.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.191/2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II 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.