JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 07.08.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation, with regard to the death of the deceased Pallapolu Venkatareddy, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 03.02.2014 at 06.50 a.m. awarded a sum of Rs.5,90,000/-. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) The deceased was aged 44 years. He was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was doing agriculture of his own lands. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing the same for the maintenance of his family. (ii) On 03.02.2014, at 06.50 a.m. the deceased was going to his fields from the house on his motorcycle. He reached culvert on Mallavaram Kalva on Panakalapalem-Chejerla road. There the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7568 (“offending vehicle” for short), while going to Ongole from Chejerla, drove the same in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Then the deceased fell down on the road and, received multiple injuries and died on the spot. (iii) Crime No. 52 of 2014, under sections 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 in Ongole Taluk police station. (iv) Petitioners suffered a lot on account of the death of the deceased. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, who lost their beloved son and protection in the old age. Hence, respondent No. 1, being the driver and respondent No. 2, being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No. 1 got filed vakalat, but later did not turn up. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, who lost their beloved son and protection in the old age. Hence, respondent No. 1, being the driver and respondent No. 2, being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No. 1 got filed vakalat, but later did not turn up. Respondent No. 2 got filed written statement, denying the averments in the petition and contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident, age and avocation of the deceased. The accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but it was due to the rider of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased. Driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was coming from Chejerla to Ongole, very slowly, because it was fog in the road, due to winter season. The deceased could not control his speed and dashed the left bumper and head light of the R.T.C. bus and flew up in the air and hit the left front glass of the bus and caused the accident. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial: (1) Whether the deceased Pallapolu Venka Reddy died in the accident occurred on 03.02.2014 at about 06.50 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7568? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 was examined as RW.1, but no documents were marked. 7. If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 was examined as RW.1, but no documents were marked. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 and considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- and considered the Schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act (the “M.V. Act” for short), because the claim was laid under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, applied multiplier of 15 and arrived at the multiplicand as that of Rs.8,10,000/- and deducted 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.2,70,000/-, towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and ascertained the compensation as that of Rs.5,40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, each towards loss of consortium, love and affection and loss of estate. Further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, towards funeral expenses and arrived at the figure of Rs.5,90,000/- and awarded the same. 8. Felt aggrieved of that award, the unsuccessful respondent No. 2, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point that arises for determination is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 07.08.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?” POINT: 10. The contention of Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing Sri Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal without proper evidence, held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. The claim was laid under section 163-A of the M.V. Act, in which there was no need to give such a finding. The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, as such, the award needs to be interfered with. 11. The claim was laid under section 163-A of the M.V. Act, in which there was no need to give such a finding. The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, as such, the award needs to be interfered with. 11. Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel, representing Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, would contend that the Tribunal has to deduct 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses, but it deducted 1/3rd of the income. Though the application is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, but it was with pleading that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and further the issues were also framed to that effect. Even the findings were given basing on the charge sheet filed, as such this Court can consider the claim before the Tribunal as under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and in support of the said contention, he would rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . He would submit that the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased properly and there is no need to interfere with the award. He would submit that even if the petition is considered as under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The compensation that is awarded need not be interfered with. 12. Firstly, this Court would like to make it clear that the claim was laid before the Tribunal with pleading that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1. There was a counter filed by the respondent No. 2 denying rash and negligent act alleged against the respondent No. 1. But it appears that the very laying of the claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, appears to be mistake. May be it is a typographical error. However, the Tribunal having given findings that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1, was not justified in ascertaining the compensation looking into the Schedule-II of the M.V. Act. May be it is a typographical error. However, the Tribunal having given findings that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1, was not justified in ascertaining the compensation looking into the Schedule-II of the M.V. Act. As evident from the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, Nagappa’s case (1st supra), even at the appellant stage the Court can consider the application as under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. It is to be noted that pleadings in the claim were the criteria to ascertain the nature of the application. So, considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the claim before the Tribunal is to be looked in to as that of Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 13. Turning to the evidence of PW-1, who was wife of the deceased, she in her chief examination, put for the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her evidence, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 52 of 2014 of Ongole Taluk police station. Ex.A2 was the attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A3 was the attested copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the attested copy of charge sheet. 14. Though the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1, but there is no dispute that, police after investigation, filed charge sheet against him, alleging that he caused the death of the deceased on account of the rash and negligent driving. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1. 15. The claimants are six (06) in number. Claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the major daughters of the deceased. claimant No. 5 is the mother and claimant No. 6 is the father. The period of the accident was in the year 2014. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- per month, which was absolutely on reasonable basis. The deceased was aged 44 years. claimant No. 5 is the mother and claimant No. 6 is the father. The period of the accident was in the year 2014. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- per month, which was absolutely on reasonable basis. The deceased was aged 44 years. The application of multiplier of 15 by the Tribunal is erroneous, because having given finding that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligence of the respondent No. 1, the Tribunal was not justified looking into the Schedule-II of the M.V. Act. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 the proper multiplier for the age group of 41-45 years is 14. In view of the aforesaid decision, as the claimants are six (06) in number, 1/4th of the amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. The contention of Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents to deduct 1/5th of the amount deserves no merits. It is to be noted that after deducting 1/4th of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net notional contributions would come to Rs.3,375/- per month. If it is taken for 12 months, it would amount to Rs.40,500/- per annum. The proper multiplier of 14 is to be applied with Rs.40,500/- as such, the multiplicand comes to Rs.5,67,000/-. In view of the decision of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 the compensation under the conventional heads is only Rs.70,000/-, i.e. loss of estate and loss of consortium and funeral expense should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,37,000/- (Rs.5,67,000/- + Rs.70,000/-). But the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,90,000/- only. There is no cross appeal or cross objection, so as to enhance the compensation. So, the overall amount of Rs.5,90,000/- is lesser than the claimants are entitled. Hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the award 07.08.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole. 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. So, the overall amount of Rs.5,90,000/- is lesser than the claimants are entitled. Hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the award 07.08.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole. 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. The appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their share of compensation, in terms of the award of the Tribunal. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.