JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/R3/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Pithapuram, in M.V.O.P.No.44 of 2017 dated 20.07.2018 wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners for the death of Kum.Guna Lakshmi Krishna Dharani(herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.2016 at about 11.45 a.m. 2. The appellant/insurance company and respondents 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as R3 and petitioners as arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal in brief is that they are parents of the deceased who died in motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.2016 at 11.45 a.m., Atchempeta Center, Thimmapuram Police Station limits. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 13.11.2016 their son and daughter (deceased) went to their maternal grand-parents village, i.e. Vijayarayudupalem on motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 CP 9422. At that time, the deceased was pillion rider. The petitioners submit that when the deceased and her brother(rider of motor cycle) were proceeding on a motor cycle, when they reached Atchampeta Center, one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 05 TD 4448 driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from Samarlakota side while proceeding towards Suryaraopeta, dashed against the motor cycle wherein the deceased was travelling along with her brother as a pillion rider, due to which, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the report lodged by the first petitioner/mother of the deceased, the Station House Officer, Thimmapuram police station registered the case against R1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. The petitioners submit that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of tipper and R2 is the owner of offending vehicle which insured with R3 insurance company and the policy was in force on the date of accident. They submit that the deceased was studying Teacher Training Course in V.V.S.College of Teacher Training and she was a meritorious student. But due to sudden demise of the deceased they sustained irreparable loss. They submit that the deceased was studying Teacher Training Course in V.V.S.College of Teacher Training and she was a meritorious student. But due to sudden demise of the deceased they sustained irreparable loss. They claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on various heads. 4. The third respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident occurred, age and income of the deceased claimed by the petitioners prior to the accident. It is the contention of R3 that respondents 1 and 2 violated the conditions of the policy. They submit that accident occurred due to the negligent driving of rider of motor cycle who was not having driving licence. They pray to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent by vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 4448 resulting injuries and death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of R3, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked with consent. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, R3-insurance company preferred the present appeal stating that the Tribunal failed to see that the deceased was studying XI Class and she secured seat in management quota, due to that she cannot be treated as a brilliant student. They submit that the trial Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is not permissible in death cases as per the guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also the contention of appellant/R3 that there is no basis for Tribunal to grant compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and failed to follow proper multiplier and not deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. They pray to allow the appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Haragopal. None represented for respondents 1 and 2. 10. They pray to allow the appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Haragopal. None represented for respondents 1 and 2. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has not followed any multiplier to arrive loss of dependency and not deducted 50% of income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses though the deceased died as unmarried. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not given any reason for arriving to Rs.15,00,000/- as loss of dependency, which is liable to be set aside. He prays to allow the appeal. 11. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is, “Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioners/R1 and R2 by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which needs any interference of this Court?” 12. POINT: There is no dispute that the deceased while travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle of P.W.2 met with motor vehicle accident, sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is not the contention of R3-insurance company that accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased but they pleaded negligence on the part of P.W.2 rider of motor cycle, but they failed to adduce any evidence to show that P.W.2 was not authorised to drive motor cycle and there was negligence on the part of P.W.2 for the cause of accident. A perusal of Ex.A1 FIR shows that basing on the report lodged before the police immediately after the accident, who also filed charge sheet against R1, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TD 4448. In motor vehicle accident claims, though proof of negligence is a sine-qua-non to maintain a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, when criminal case records proved on record, if remain un-rebutted and unchallenged can be taken to be sufficient, to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Even, when any party wants the Court to believe that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the victim, it has to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence, and Court cannot substitute its own Judgment with that of the witness. Even, when any party wants the Court to believe that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the victim, it has to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence, and Court cannot substitute its own Judgment with that of the witness. (vide decision in Bimla Devi and others, Appellants vs. Road Transport Corporation and others, Respondents in Civil Appeal No.2538 of 2009, Supreme Court, Judgment dated 15.04.2009). In Anita Sharma and others vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.4010-4011 of 2020, Judgment dated 08.12.2020 the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the dictum that the standard of proof in motor vehicle accident cases is on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Apex Court followed the ratio laid down in Bimla Devi’s case referred supra. 13. In the present case also, petitioners by examining P.W.2 rider of motor cycle able to prove that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1. The investigation conducted by police supports the contention of the petitioners the manner in which the accident occurred as after due investigation, they filed charge sheet against R1, driver of offending lorry. 14. The main contention of R3/insurance company is that the award of the Tribunal not reflects any reason for arriving loss of dependency and awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering in motor vehicle accident cases, which is not permissible under law. 15. The judicial dictum evolved on the principles of assessing compensation under the following heads : ‘(i) Loss of dependency, (ii) loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and (iii) contributory negligence, if any.’ 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others, Appellants Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, Respondents, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , laid down that the important factors to be considered while assessing compensation are:- (a) age of the deceased at the time of his death; (b) income of the deceased at the time of death ; and (c) the number of dependents left behind. To adequately take into account all these factors in calculating loss of dependency, the following methodology was adopted:- Actual income of the deceased per annum (-) personal and living expenses of the deceased (+) future prospects (x) multiplier. The actual income is based on income less tax if the income is within taxable. To adequately take into account all these factors in calculating loss of dependency, the following methodology was adopted:- Actual income of the deceased per annum (-) personal and living expenses of the deceased (+) future prospects (x) multiplier. The actual income is based on income less tax if the income is within taxable. The Hon’ble Apex Court Constitutional Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , approved the ratio and multiplier as held in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case referred supra. Now, it would be beneficial to quote para ‘16’ of Pranay Sethi’s case which reads as under:- “[61] In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 17. In the present case the evidence of P.W.3 principal of the college supports the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was studying B.Ed. course, who got seat in management quota. There is no dispute that the deceased was aged 19 years on the date of her death as Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 support the contention of the petitioners. After considering the age and educational qualification of the deceased, her notional income prior to her death can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month which deceased would have got the same if she alive as she already has completed B.Ed. course. If she would have appointed as a teacher, the income of the deceased has taken as Rs.15,000/- per month, which works out to Rs.1,80,000/- per annum (15000 X 12 = 1,80,000). As per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 which was approved by Hon’ble Apex Court constitutional bench in Pranay Sethi’s case (referred supra) when deceased died as a bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd and her contribution to the family can be taken as 50%. When 50% amount is deducted from loss of dependency, it comes to Rs.90,000/-(Rs.1,80,000/- minus Rs.90,000/- = Rs.90,000/-). When 50% amount is deducted from loss of dependency, it comes to Rs.90,000/-(Rs.1,80,000/- minus Rs.90,000/- = Rs.90,000/-). After considering the age of the petitioner as 19 years, proper multiplier to arrive loss of dependency is multiplier 18 as per the table shown in Smt. Sarla Verma Case (referred supra). When annual loss of dependency is multiplied with 18, it comes to Rs.16,20,000/-. The petitioners who are parents of the deceased entitled to claim a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- only. The learned tribunal failed to follow the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma Case (referred supra) and no reason is given to arrive loss of dependency as Rs.15,00,000/- without deciding the notional income of the deceased. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and also on facts. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners from Rs.24,60,000/- to Rs.16,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 08.05.2017 till the date of realisation which jointly and severally payable by respondents 1 to 3. On such deposit, the first petitioner/mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the second petitioner/father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.6,90,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. The appellant insurance company shall deposit balance of compensation amount before the Tribunal after deducting the amount which already they deposited as per interim orders passed by this Court dated 26.12.2018 within two months from the date of orders of this Court. On such deposit, the petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount without furnishing any security. In the circumstances of the case, I direct both parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Interim stay granted earlier shall stand merged with this order.