JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 08.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 290 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with regard to the death of the Doddi Venkataramana (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 02.06.2014 at 02.15 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,000/-. 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 claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Doddi Venkataramana. He was aged 38 years and working as labourer. He was earning Rs.300/- per day. (ii) On 02.06.2014 at about 02.15 p.m. the deceased and others were travelling in the auto of the respondent No. 5 bearing No. AP 35 W 4826 (“offending vehicle” for short), from Bobbili to Balla Krishnapuram Village. The auto reached near FCI godown, Antipeta Village. The respondent No. 5’s auto driver i.e. respondent No. 4 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 63, which came in opposite direction. Deceased and other sustained simple and grievous injuries. All of them including the deceased were shifted to C.H.C. Bobbili and from thereafter, he was shifted to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam. On the way, he succumbed to the injuries. (iii) The deceased was contributing his earnings to the claimants. They spent Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses and transport expenditure and they lost their sole earning member. (iv) Station House Officer, Seethanagaram police station, registered a case in Crime No. 81 of 2014 against respondent No. 1 (bus driver) and later on, filed charge sheet against respondent No. 4, who is the driver of the auto. Hence, claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4...... (i) Respondent No. 1, the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and respondent Nos.4 and 5 driver and owner of the offending auto remained ex-parte. Hence, claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4...... (i) Respondent No. 1, the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and respondent Nos.4 and 5 driver and owner of the offending auto remained ex-parte. (ii) Respondent No. 3 got filed a written statement, which is adopted by respondent No. 2. They denied and disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased and manner of the accident. Their contention is that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. But the negligence was on the part of the respondent No. 4, who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hence, claim is to be dismissed against them. (iii) Respondent No. 6, the Insurance Company got filed counter contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the manner of the accident. Claimants are not dependents on the deceased. Respondent No. 4 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the auto and there is breach of conditions, their liability is to subject to respondent No. 5’s auto was insured with them. 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 due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver or due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 (A.P.S.R.T.C. bus) or both of them have contributed for the accident and caused the death of the deceased Doddi Venkataramana, if so, to what percentage? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C. did not adduce any evidence. On behalf of the respondent No. 6, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through RW-2. 7. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C. did not adduce any evidence. On behalf of the respondent No. 6, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through RW-2. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal made finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the made by the driver of the offending auto i.e. respondent No. 4 and that the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- per month, on basis of notional theory and as the claimants are five(05) in number, deducted 1/4th towards living and personal expenses and took into consideration 3/4th of the amount as the amount which can be contributed to the family. The Tribunal arrived at the multiplicand as Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.4,500 X ¾ X 12 X 16). The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards transport and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and further awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, thereby awarded a sum of Rs.7,18,000/-. The Tribunal considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.X1 and X2 and was of the view that respondent No. 4 was not holding any driving license to drive the auto, as such following the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kurnool vs. Katika Giridhar Rao and Another, 2014 (3) ALD 706 ordered pay and recovery, directed respondent No. 6 to pay compensation, then to recover the same from respondent Nos.4 and 5. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid compensation, the unsuccessful respondent No. 6, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point for determination is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 08.07.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 290 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?” POINT: 10. Sri G. Haragopal, learned counsel for the appellant, would canvass contentions according to the grounds of appeal. Sri G. Haragopal, learned counsel for the appellant, would canvass contentions according to the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are to the effect that the trial Court did not look into the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving license and the trial Court did not look into the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.X1 and X2 and trial Court failed to grant at least pay and recovery and failed to follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the award of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and facts. 11. Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants, seeks to support the judgment on the ground that the trial Court duly looked into the fact that respondent No. 4 did not possess valid driving license, as such, ordered pay and recovery, as such there are no merits in the grounds of appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Sri Vinod Kumar Taralada, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C./respondent Nos. 6 and 7, would submit that there is no responsibility is fixed up against A.P.S.R.T.C. as such, M.A.C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 13. As seen from the testimony of PW-1, who was no other than the wife of the deceased, who in her chief examination affidavit, put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested true copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 81 of 2014 of Setthanagaram police station. Ex.A2 was the attested true copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A3 was the attested true copy of inquest report. Ex.A4 was the attested true copy of M.V.I. report. Ex.A5 was the attested true copy of charge sheet. 14. Further the claimants examined PW-2 one Balla Adinarayana, who is said to be a eye witness to the occurrence. He testified that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver and the auto dashed against the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. During the cross-examination, he denied that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus only. He testified that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver and the auto dashed against the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. During the cross-examination, he denied that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus only. It is to be noted that though the police originally registered F.I.R. against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, but later filed charge sheet under Ex.A5 was lodged alleging rash and negligent driving made by the respondent No. 4. It is a case where the respondent No. 4 remained ex-parte. RW-1 the representative of the Insurance Company was not a witness to the occurrence. So, the claim of the petitioners was supported by the evidence of PW-2, coupled with outcome of investigation in Crime No. 81 of 2014. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No4, in driving the offending auto. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are not to be sought to be disturbed in the grounds of appeal. Neither the owner of the auto nor the driver of auto filed any appeal, challenging the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving held to be proved against the respondent No. 4. 15. Now turning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal disbelieved the theory of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per day. The period of accident was is in the year 2014. Considering the minimum wages that were available by then, the fixation of monthly income of the deceased as that of Rs.4,500/- per month was on reasonable basis. 16. As the claimants are five (05) in number, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 14 and arrived at multiplicand as that of Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 3/4 X 12 X 16 = Rs.6,48,000/-). Tribunal applied the multiplier 16, considering the age of the deceased as 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 . So, the multiplicand of Rs.6,48,000/- is on reasonable basis. 17. Tribunal applied the multiplier 16, considering the age of the deceased as 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 . So, the multiplicand of Rs.6,48,000/- is on reasonable basis. 17. Though the Tribunal awarded additionally a sum of Rs.70,000/- as described above, but in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 the compensation under conventional heads should be Rs.70,000/-. So, the overall the quantum that was arrived at by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.7,18,000/- (Rs.6,48,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.7,18,000/-) is reasonable. 18. It is to be noted that the Tribunal categorically made findings that the respondent No. 4 did not possess any valid driving license. The Tribunal arrived at the findings by looking into the evidence of RWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.X1 and X2. So, there are policy violations. So, when the Tribunal gave appropriate findings that there was no driving license to respondent No. 4 and policy violation, the grounds of appeal are nothing but devoid of merits. The contention of the appellant in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal did not held that there was no driving license to the respondent No. 4 and that the Tribunal did not order pay and recovery etc., are totally contrary to the findings of the Tribunal. The fact remained is that the Tribunal made categorical findings that there are policy violations, because respondent No. 4 did not possess a valid driving license. The act of the Tribunal in the respondent No. 6 to pay and then recover the amount from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is on reasonable basis. 19. Viewing from any angle, absolutely there are no merits in the grounds of appeal as such the M.A.C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. 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. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.