JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2013 dated 03.10.2016. 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2017 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.2399 of 2017 is preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5847 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are husband and daughters of one Nimmakayla @ Kasimkota Chinna Narasamma (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The respondent No.4 is driver of the said crime bus. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 22.03.2023, while the deceased was proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 07 X 9787 from Pedakakani to Guntur on the left side of the road, at about 08.00 p.m., when the auto reached opposite BSNL Office, Near Postal Colony, Pedakakani, the 1st respondent driver of the crime bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the auto on its back side, resulted, the deceased and two others sustained injuries. When the deceased was shifted to hospital, declared her as brought dead. ii). The deceased was aged about 46 years by the time of incident, working as Lab Assistant in J.M.J College, Tenali and earned Rs.16,000/- per month. Being legal representatives and dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus. 7. The driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus and it is only due to negligence of the driver of the auto, thereby, the owner of the crime bus is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No.AP 28Z 5847 and caused the death of Nimmakayala @ Kasimkota Chinna Narasamma on 22.03.2023 at 8 a.m.? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8 and X.1 to X.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the driver of the crime bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked. 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.16,75,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 11. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimants and A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of the crime bus respectively. 12. Heard Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2399 of 2017 and Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2017. 13. Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submits that claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime bus; that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of P.W.2, who is auto driver; that Tribunal awarded abnormal compensation without considering the material on record and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 14. Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime bus; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants before the tribunal. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of auto/P.W.2 in causing the incident? 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 3. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of auto/P.W.2 in causing the incident? 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 3. To what relief ? 16. POINT No.1: On this point, the Tribunal categorically held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.W.1 only and to come to a such conclusion, relied on the testimony of P.W.2 as well documents produced by the claimants. 17. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident and involvement of crime bus as well auto. 18. On perusal of testimony of P.W.2, who said to be driver of the auto, it is categorical that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus. In support of the testimony of P.W.2, the claimants got marked Ex.A.1 F.I.R. and A.2 Charge Sheet, which shows that after completion of entire investigation, police came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime bus. Even on perusal of testimony of R.W.1, who said to be driver of the crime bus by the time of incident, the crime bus dashed on the backside of the auto, that itself shows the negligence on the part of R.W.1. It is needless to say that, Ex.B.1 copy of judgment in C.C.398 of 2013, which was ended in acquittal against R.W.1, as material witnesses did not support the prosecution version, cannot be taken as binding to decide the rash and negligence on the part of the driver in a case of motor vehicle accident claims. 19. The acquittal of a driver in a criminal case does not necessarily have a bearing on the determination of a motor accident claim. The standards of proof in criminal and civil cases are different. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas in civil cases, such as motor accident claims, the standard is “preponderance of evidence” or “balance of probabilities.” The law on this aspect settled and courts have consistently held that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve the driver from liability in a motor accident claim. 20. 20. Division Bench of Madras High Court in an unreported decision in C.M.A.No.1369 of 2017 (TNSTC Vs. P.Shanthi and others) dated 28.04.2017, after referring to various decisions, has held that “19.Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not lead to an automatic inference that there was no negligence on the part of RW1, driver of the bus. The standard of proof required is entirely different from the Criminal Court. In Motor Accident Claims Cases, preponderance of probability is the test to arrive at the conclusion regarding negligence”. 21. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Jarnail Singh and others, 2009 ACJ 2807 , held at paragraph No.15 by the Apex Court that “acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as to whether the driver was negligent or not in causing the accident. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments cited hereinabove, it is now well settled law that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligence or not in causing the accident”. 22. In view of above settled legal position, viewing from any angle, it is crystal clear that 1st respondent driver of the crime bus is responsible for the incident and due to his negligence only the incident had occurred. Thereby, no contributory negligence attributed against P.W.2. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 23. POINT NO.2: It is the not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was working as Lab Attender in JMJ College for Women at Tenali and getting salary of Rs.16,015/-. To fortify the said fact, the claimants got examined P.W.3 and marked Exs.X.1 to X.3. By considering the said facts, the Tribunal rightly taken the income of the deceased is Rs.15,217/- after deducting profession tax. This Court did not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal, while deciding the income of the deceased. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.1,82,604/- per annum. 24. By considering the said facts, the Tribunal rightly taken the income of the deceased is Rs.15,217/- after deducting profession tax. This Court did not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal, while deciding the income of the deceased. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.1,82,604/- per annum. 24. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC), the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 25. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 30% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was age ground of 40 to 50 years…....(emphasis supplied) 26. In the present case, as per the above-said decision 30% of actual salary shall have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 47 years. After adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.2,37,385/-(Rs.1,82,604/-+Rs.54,781/-). 27. In the present case, as per the above-said decision 30% of actual salary shall have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 47 years. After adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.2,37,385/-(Rs.1,82,604/-+Rs.54,781/-). 27. In the case on hand, since the deceased is married women and there are three dependents, as per the ratio laid down by the APEX Court, 1/3rd is to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.1,58,257/-. 28. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr., 2017 (3) SCC 315, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. 29. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 47 years is 13. 29. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 47 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.20,57,341/- (Rs.1,58,257/- x 13). Apart from that as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 3) towards spousal and parental consortium, an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claim petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.22,07,341/-. The remaining heads as claimed and awarded by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present case on hand, in view of the above pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.1,82,604/- per annum 2 30% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,82,604/- +Rs.54,781/-) Rs.2,37,385/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.1,58,257/-. 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.1,58,257/- x 13) Rs.20,57,341/- 5 Loss of spousal and parental consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.22,07,341/- 31. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,75,000/- to Rs.22,07,341/-. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the claimants. 32. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only and with regard to the remaining aspects there is no need to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is liable for dismissal and the appeal preferred by the claimants is liable to be considered partly. 33. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2017 is allowed in part to enhance the compensation from Rs.16,75,000/- to Rs.22,07,341/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against driver and owner of the crime bus/respondent Nos.1 and 2. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled the enhanced compensation amount equally and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled the enhanced compensation amount equally and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The respondents shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 34. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2399 of 2017 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.