JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the Award, dated 27.03.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with claim for compensation made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein/claimants for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of the death of one Kundrapu Arjunarao (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.10.2016, allowed the claim. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: 1st claimant is wife, 2nd claimant is minor daughter and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents, of the deceased. On 29.10.2006 at about 5.45 PM, the deceased was travelling with others in an auto bearing registration No. AP5 Y 2702 from Rajanagaram side towards Vadisaleru; when the said auto reached the outskirts of Vadisaleru village, respondent No. 1/driver of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA 1836 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed the auto forcibly; as a result, the auto was completely damaged and the deceased and other passengers of the said auto sustained grievous injuries; all the injured persons were shifted to GSL Hospital, Rajanagaram; later, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, 2nd respondent is owner and 5th respondent is insurer, of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA1836; 3rd respondent is owner and 4th respondent is insurer, of the auto bearing registration No. AP5 Y 2702. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remains ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto bearing registration No. AP5Y 2702 filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1/driver of the car has valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident; compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive; the deceased did not possess valid driving license. 6. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remains ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto bearing registration No. AP5Y 2702 filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1/driver of the car has valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident; compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive; the deceased did not possess valid driving license. 6. Respondent No. 5/insurer of the car bearing registration No. AP16 BA1836 filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1 was not the registered driver of the car and he did not carry valid, proper and effective LMV transport driving license. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the OP. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1 driver of Car bearing No. AP16 BA 1836? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. During inquiry, the wife of the deceased in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011 was examined as PW-1, apart from examining PW-2, who is the eyewitness to the accident and got exhibited Exs.A1 to 5. None examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents are marked on behalf of the respondents. 9. On consideration of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal, on issue No. 1, held that the accident occurred on account of composite negligence of drivers of both car and auto and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In respect of issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.7,83,000/- and directed the insurers i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation among the claimants and permitted them to withdraw their respective shares. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto preferred the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence of respondent No. 1/driver of the car, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto preferred the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence of respondent No. 1/driver of the car, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further contends that the driver of the car alone was charge sheeted and if there is any rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, the police might have charge sheeted him too. When there is no criminal liability on the driver of the auto, the respondent No. 4/Insurer of the auto is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the evidence brought on record proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver of car and dashed the auto, in which the deceased was travelling and due to the said act, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death and therefore, the respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto is equally liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was travelling in the auto by the time of accident. The judgment of the Tribunal is a well-reasoned one and it does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, he requests to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point for determination is whether the Order and Decree, dated 27.03.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in awarding the compensation of Rs.7,83,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 13. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. The claimants, to establish the manner of occurrence of the accident, examined the eyewitness viz. Kummari Jagga Rao as PW-2, before the learned Tribunal. POINT: 13. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. The claimants, to establish the manner of occurrence of the accident, examined the eyewitness viz. Kummari Jagga Rao as PW-2, before the learned Tribunal. A perusal of his evidence would establish that on 29.10.2006 at about 5.45 p.m. the deceased along with one Kummara Sreenu and Diddu Manga Devi was travelling in the auto bearing registration No. AP 5Y 2702 belonged to respondent No. 3, driven by one Nokki Venkateswara Rao plying from Rajanagaram towards Vadisaleru. His evidence would further reveal that when the auto reached the outskirts of Vadisaleru village, respondent No. 1 being the driver of the car bearing registration No. AP 16 BA 1836, drove in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the auto. He further deposed that in the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. His evidence further revealed that by the time of accident, PW-2 was proceedings on his cycle towards Vadisaleru village. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the version of PW-2 that the deceased travelled in the auto belonged to respondent No. 3 and due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 14. Indisputably, neither the respondent No. 2/owner of the car, and respondent No. 3/owner of the auto nor the respondent No. 5/ insurer of the car preferred any appeal against the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and also against fixing the liability among the respondent No. 5/insurer of the car jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the claimants. 15. 1st claimant, wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. In her chief-examination, she put-forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. During her examination, Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Apparently, PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the accident. Her evidence revealed that the deceased was her husband and at the time of the accident, he was aged around 23 years and the entire family was depending on the sole earning of the deceased. Nothing concrete was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Her evidence revealed that the deceased was her husband and at the time of the accident, he was aged around 23 years and the entire family was depending on the sole earning of the deceased. Nothing concrete was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. A perusal of evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is evident that PW-1 sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and succumbed to the same. 16. Further, a perusal of Ex.A1 FIR would reveal that police registered a crime against respondent No. 1 and charge sheeted him alleging that the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto belonged to respondent No. 3, in which the deceased was travelling and due to which, the deceased succumbed to death. The evidence of PW-2 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1, proves that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the deceased succumbed to the same. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. 17. It is not the contention of respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto that the driver of the car is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It is also not the contention of respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto that the both the car and the auto were not having insurance policy at the time of the accident. A perusal of Exs.B1 and B2 discloses that both the car and the auto, which are involved in the accident, are having valid insurance policy and they are in force by the time of accident. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability over the respondent No. 4/insurer of the auto along with the respondent No. 5/insurer of the car directing them to pay the compensation to the claimants. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was a coolie and used to earn a sum of Rs.150/- per day. Indisputably, the claimants did not file any proof that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was a coolie and used to earn a sum of Rs.150/- per day. Indisputably, the claimants did not file any proof that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. In Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 198 the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 9 held as thus: “In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality.” 19. Having regard to the above precedent, as the accident occurred in the year 2006 and assuming the cost of living by that time, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. 20. Coming to the multiplier, the age of the deceased, as per Ex.A2-Post-Mortem Certificate is 23 years and the deceased comes within the age group of 21-25 years as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier i.e. ‘18’ and arrived to a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation under the head of compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,83,000/- towards compensation with interest at 6% per annum. A perusal of entire calculation arrived by the Tribunal, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation amount under different heads as are permissible and it is not excessive as contended by the respondent No. 4/Insurance Company. 21. A perusal of entire calculation arrived by the Tribunal, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation amount under different heads as are permissible and it is not excessive as contended by the respondent No. 4/Insurance Company. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1621 of 2015 is dismissed, confirming the Order and Decree, dated 27.03.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 880 of 2011, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.