JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 19.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 138 of 2015, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with regard to the death of Dandu Ramesh @ Ramesh Raju (hereinafter referred as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 19.11.2014 at 05.30 a.m. awarded a sum of Rs.15,20,656/-. 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 claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) The deceased was working as driver of DCM Van bearing No. AP 30 X 3534. During the course of his duty, he was proceeding towards Tadepalligudem at about 05.30 a.m. Due to sudden breakdown of the vehicle, the deceased stopped the van on the road and attending the repair of the vehicle. At that time, respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 05 Z 134 (“offending vehicle” for short), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the van and also the deceased who was attending brakedown of the vehicle. Due to the accident, deceased and his cleaner received injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. (ii) The Station House Officer, Bhimadolu police station of West Godavari District, registered a case in Crime No. 207 of 2014 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. against respondent No. 1. (iii) The deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of accident. As a lorry driver, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, who are dependents on the deceased. Hence, the claim of Rs.17,00,000/- against the driver and A.P.S.R.T.C. 4........ (i) Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. (ii) Respondent No. 2 got filed a counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the manner of the accident and rash and negligent act alleged against the respondent No. 1. Hence, the claim of Rs.17,00,000/- against the driver and A.P.S.R.T.C. 4........ (i) Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. (ii) Respondent No. 2 got filed a counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the manner of the accident and rash and negligent act alleged against the respondent No. 1. The claimants have to prove the age and income of the deceased. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was driving the bus very cautiously at the time of accident and the deceased stopped the DCM van in the road margin adjacent to the road divider and did not keep any indication marks or signal lights or any diversion boards. There was heavy fog and the objects were difficult to find. When respondent No. 1 took his bus near the van, in the left side, left side of the van collided to the front right side of the bus. Respondent No. 1 was stuck in between the steering and his both legs were fractured. There was contributory negligence of the deceased. Respondent No. 1 tried to avoid the accident, but the accident was occurred. There is no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 and the deceased wrongly parked his vehicle, due to which the accident was occurred. 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 accident took place was due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 being the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 05 Z 134? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, at what amount? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 was examined as RW-1 and co-driver of the bus was examined as RW-2. No documents were marked on their behalf. 7. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 was examined as RW-1 and co-driver of the bus was examined as RW-2. No documents were marked on their behalf. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, gave a finding that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle in driving the bus and took into consideration the income of the deceased as that of Rs.8,824/- per month, by looking into the evidence of PW-3, coupled with G.O.M.s. No. 90, dated 20.09.2007 i.e. Ex.X2, heavy vehicle driver salary and ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.15,20,656/- towards compensation. 8. Felt aggrieved of the award, the unsuccessful respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 19.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 138 of 2015, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?” POINT: 10. Sri Vinod Kumar Taralada, learned standing counsel for the appellants, would contend that the evidence on record did not prove rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle and Tribunal did not consider the evidence of RWs. 1 and 2. Further monthly income of the deceased fixed as that of Rs.8,824/- by the Tribunal was erroneous. The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the minors and further Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium is to be interfered in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . With above, he would submit that the compensation needs to be reduced. 11. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that the Tribunal rightly awarded just compensation by considering the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3, coupled with the documentary evidence brought in evidence and insofar as conventional heads of the compensation in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), he would leave the matter to the discretion of the Court. 1, 2 and 3, coupled with the documentary evidence brought in evidence and insofar as conventional heads of the compensation in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), he would leave the matter to the discretion of the Court. He would submit that multiplicand arrived at by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis, which needs no interference. 12. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, who was no other than the wife of the deceased, in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested true copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 207 of 2014 of Bhimadole police station of West Godavari District. Ex.A2 was the attested true copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A3 was the attested true copy of inquest report. Ex.A4 was the attested true copy of M.V. Inspector’s report. Ex.A5 was the attested true copy of charge sheet in Crime No. 207 of 2014 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC of Bhimadole police station of West Godavari District. Ex.A6 was the copy of driving license. Ex.A7 was the copy of PAN card. Ex.A8 was the copy of driving license extract. 13. To prove the accident, the claimants examined PW-2, who was a direct witness to the occurrence. According to the testimony of PW-2, he was standing near the left side of rear wheel of the lorry and the deceased was operating the jockey for change of tyre. In the mean time, respondent No. 1, who was the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as such, the deceased succumbed to injuries. So, the fact remained is that when the deceased was attending some work at stationed lorry, so as to attend the puncture by makings signals on the right side of the vehicle, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus hit deceased, as such the deceased died. Though respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus stepped into the witness box and though there was evidence of RW-2, about the pleadings put forth by the driver of the offending vehicle, but the fact remained is that, an F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under section 304-A I.P.C. which was not in dispute. Though respondent No. 1/driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus stepped into the witness box and though there was evidence of RW-2, about the pleadings put forth by the driver of the offending vehicle, but the fact remained is that, an F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under section 304-A I.P.C. which was not in dispute. So the fact remained is that the evidence on record goes to show that when the deceased attended some puncture work to the lorry by switching parking lights, driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The evidence on record proved the fact that the due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1. 14. Now, turning to the compensation that was arrived at by the Tribunal, the Tribunal took into the fact that the deceased was working as a driver. The claimants examined PW-3, the Assistant Labour Officer, Vizianagaram, who produced a Photostat copy of Gazette Notification, dated 26.10.2007, issued by the Labour Employment Training and Practice Department in G.O.M.S. No. 90, which was marked as Ex.X2. It shows that a heavy vehicle driver should get a minimum basic pay of Rs.5,138/- with variable dearness allowance of Rs.3686/- as on 19.11.2004. The Tribunal took into consideration the evidence of PW-3 and the contents of Ex.X2 and arrived at the income component of the deceased as Rs.5,138/- + D.A. Rs.3,686/- which come to Rs.8,824/-. The Tribunal fixed income of the deceased by looking into the minimum wages which the driver was supposed to get as on the date of accident. Hence, the whole exercise made by the Tribunal in arrivigng at Rs.8,824/- per month is reasonable. The Tribunal considered the income of Rs.8,824/- per month and there by arrived at Rs.1,05,888/- per annum. As the claimants are five (05) in number, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and fixed the net contributions as that of Rs.79,416/-. On considering the age of the deceased 32 years and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied multiplier of 16 and arrived at the multiplicand as Rs.12,70,656/- (Rs.79,416/- X 16 = Rs.12,70,656/-). On considering the age of the deceased 32 years and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied multiplier of 16 and arrived at the multiplicand as Rs.12,70,656/- (Rs.79,416/- X 16 = Rs.12,70,656/-). The Tribunal relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 ACJ 1403 awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 as consortium and further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were minors, towards loss of care and affection and further awarded as sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. It is to be noted that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum. 15. It is to be noted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 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. Apart from this in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 the minor children are eligible for parental consortium. Hence, the minors are eligible for compensation under loss of parental consortium is Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) and the quantum of compensation should be as decided by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Hence, the compensation under conventional heads needs interference. 16. Under the circumstances, reasonable compensation which can be awarded to the claimants can be summarized as follows: S. No. Name of the head under which compensation is granted for Amount awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 12,70,656/- 2. Loss of consortium, as well as other conventional heads to the petitioner No. 1 as per Pranay Sethi’s case Rs. 70,000/- 3. Parental consortium to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, each @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 14,20,656/- So, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,20,656/- and the award, dated 19.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 138 of 2015, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum –District Judge, Vizianagaram, needs interference. 17. 70,000/- 3. Parental consortium to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, each @ Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 14,20,656/- So, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,20,656/- and the award, dated 19.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 138 of 2015, on the file of the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum –District Judge, Vizianagaram, needs interference. 17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, by reducing the compensation from Rs.15,20,656/- to that of Rs.14,20,656/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants shall deposit the rest of the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, claimant No. 1 is entitled to withdraw Rs.3,64,132/-. Claimant Nos. 2 and 3, who are minors, are entitled to withdraw a sum Rs.3,14,131/- each, towards their respective share of compensation amount. Claimant Nos.4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,14,131/- each, towards their respective share of compensation amount. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.