JUDGMENT : This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 27.03.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013, on the file of V-Additional District & Sessions Judge–cum–Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, (“Tribunal” for short) where under, the Tribunal in a Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim filed by the respondent herein awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the mother of the claimant in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 15.02.2013. 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 claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that : (i) The claimant is the daughter of the deceased. On 15.02.2013 at Ramudupalem Village at 11.50 a.m., when the mother of the claimant tried to cross the road from north to south so as to catch RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127(herein after will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) the bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased due to which the left front bumper of the bus hit the deceased and left front wheel of the bus ran over her, causing her death on the spot. (ii) The Station House Officer, Indukurpet, registered the case in Crime No.20/2013 against the driver of the offending RTC Bus under Section 304-A IPC. As the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the respondent has to held the liability to pay compensation. 4. The respondent got filed a counter, denying the case of the petitioner and resisting the claim of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has to prove the age of the deceased and the manner of the accident and further the income of the deceased and her contributions towards the family. The claimant has to prove that she is the legal heir of the deceased. The claimant being married woman is not entitled to seek any compensation. There was no negligence on the part of the bus driver bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The claimant being married woman is not entitled to seek any compensation. There was no negligence on the part of the bus driver bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial : (1) Whether the accident that took place on 15.02.2013 at about 11.50 a.m. in Ramudupalem village was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3127? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so to what amount? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.4 were marked. The respondent examined the Conductor of the bus as R.W.1. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with an interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and that the claimant is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded amount with accrued interest and that the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for 3 years and that the time for depositing is one month. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent i.e., APSRTC filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 8. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for determination are as follows : (1) Whether the claimant before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3127? (2) Whether the claimant proved her entitlement to claim the compensation on account of the death of deceased and whether the award dated 27.03.2015, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts? Point Nos.1 and 2: 9. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the claimant and in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in tune with petition averments. Through her examination Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. Point Nos.1 and 2: 9. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the claimant and in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in tune with petition averments. Through her examination Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested Xerox copy FIR in Crime No.20/2013, Ex.A2 was the attested Xerox copy of inquest report, Ex.A3 was the attested Xerox copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased and Ex.A4 was the copy of charge sheet. 10. Further, the petitioner examined the direct witness to the occurrence i.e., P.W.2, who deposed that at the time of the accident, he was standing near tea bunk situated on the northern side of the road at Ramudupalem village and he witnessed the same. The RTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed and while adjusting with a curve, the left front bumper of the RTC bus hit the deceased and accordingly, the deceased came under the left front wheel of the bus and died instantaneously. 11. The respondent examined the Conductor of the RTC bus whose evidence was that there was a "U" shape turning at Ramudupalem and one lady pedestrian suddenly crossed the road from north to south without observing the moving of the bus. Though the bus was moving slowly but hit the lady pedestrian, as she suddenly crossed the road without taking proper care and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. The learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Solomon Raju, appearing for the appellant, would contend that evidence on record would disclose that the accident was occurred due to the negligent walking of the deceased so as to catch the bus and the R.W.1 who was no other than the conductor of the bus, supported the case of the appellant. The evidence on record did not prove the rash and negligent act against the driver of the RTC bus. He would further submit that the marriage of the petitioner was performed long back prior to the death of the deceased and she was a married daughter and she was not at all dependent upon the deceased and there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to award any compensation. He would further submit that the marriage of the petitioner was performed long back prior to the death of the deceased and she was a married daughter and she was not at all dependent upon the deceased and there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to award any compensation. He would further submit that even otherwise a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as a compensation awarded to the petitioner was highly excessive. With the above submissions, he would contend that the appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. Though, an opportunity is given to the respondent to get the arguments advanced, no arguments are advanced. 14. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the evidence on record would prove that the deceased died due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC bus. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they denied the case of the respondent. As seen from the evidence of R.W.1, though he supported the case of the respondent but being a conductor virtually he would have no occasion to observe as to the manner in which the driver of the RTC bus was driving the vehicle. On the other hand, P.W.2 who claimed that he was a direct witness to the occurrence corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. There is no dispute that with regard to the incident in question the police registered F.I.R under Section 304-A IPC in Crime No.20/2013 of Indukurpet Police Station and after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet (Ex.A4 is the copy of the charge sheet) alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle. So, the outcome of the investigation was that the driver of APSRTC bus i.e., offending vehicle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased which caused her instantaneous death. 15. It is to be noted the respondent has every control over the driver of the RTC bus. The respondent did not examine the driver of APSRTC bus. On the other hand, R.W.1 being a conductor whose duty was only to issue tickets to the passengers would have no occasion to observe the manner of driving of the driver. In my considered view, there was no proper rebuttal evidence to the evidence let in by the petitioner. The respondent did not examine the driver of APSRTC bus. On the other hand, R.W.1 being a conductor whose duty was only to issue tickets to the passengers would have no occasion to observe the manner of driving of the driver. In my considered view, there was no proper rebuttal evidence to the evidence let in by the petitioner. Evidence on record goes to prove that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle due to which the mother of the petitioner died instantaneously. 16. As seen from the copy of inquest under Ex.A2 and the copy of post-mortem under Ex.A3, the cause of the death of the deceased on account of the injuries received in the accident. Therefore, the petitioner was able to prove before the Tribunal that the death of the mother of the petitioner was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of APSRTC bus. 17. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the petitioner being married daughter was not entitled to compensation, it deserves no merits, in my considered view. It is borne out from the evidence that father of P.W.1 died about three years ago and her marriage took place about 18 years ago. Because of the death of father of the petitioner, her mother was staying with them. So, undoubtedly, the petitioner being the daughter and dependent of the deceased is entitled to compensation. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant in this regard. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, admittedly, there was no evidence adduced to show actual earnings of the deceased. So, when there was no evidence on record, Tribunal had to arrive at the income of the deceased on the basis of notional theory. The accident took place in the year 2013. Even a person who was doing coolie works like the deceased in the year 2013, would have easily earned Rs.100/- per day. So, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, as such Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per year. Following the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC, the Tribunal deducted the 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. So, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, as such Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per year. Following the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC, the Tribunal deducted the 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Further, there is no dispute that the proper multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 is “13”. So, the Tribunal considered the net contributions of the deceased towards the family as that of Rs.24,000/- per year and multiplied it and it arrived at Rs.3,12,000/-. Though, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and further sum Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate i.e., Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads but restricted the compensation to that of Rs.3,00,000/- only. Though the petitioner being the daughter was not entitled to consortium but in fact the compensation was restricted to only Rs.3,00,000/-, even as against the calculations of Rs.3,12,000/-. Considering the same, the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant was absolutely on reasonable basis, as such, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. 19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.