JUDGMENT : (A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.) Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 09.11.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.307 of 2014 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation sought by the claimants on account of the death of B. Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 28.11.2009 at 03:30 PM, awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards compensation. 2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 28.11.2009 at about 03:30 p.m. on Chittoor-Palamaner road while the deceased was driving his two wheeler slowly and going towards Motharapalle the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1110 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and later died on the spot. Station House Officer, Traffic Police Station, Chittoor registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was the only breadwinner of their family and due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their breadwinner, his earnings and also his love and affection. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 4. Second and third respondents remained ex parte. 5. First respondent got filed a counter denying the material allegations of the petitioners contending in substance that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high and excessive. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased as such first respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP 11 Z 1110, or due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP 11 Z 1110, or due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP03 AH 3460 by the deceased, or by both? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent, no evidence was let in and no documents were marked on his behalf. 8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the claimants and against the contesting respondent/APSRTC and awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards compensation. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the un-successful respondents/APSRTC filed the present Appeal. 10. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is: Whether the award of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.307 of 2014, dated 09.11.2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor in awarding compensation of Rs.6,48,000/- against the original claim of Rs.7,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 11. Sri K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/APSRTC, would contend that the evidence did not reveal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and, according to him, the deceased was negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation as such the award needs interference. 12. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, seeks to dismiss the Appeal on the ground that the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased and applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, AIR (2009) SC 3104 and awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 13. 13. It is to be noted that the petitioners before the Tribunal are no other than elder brothers of the deceased. Deceased was a bachelor. Insofar as the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, there was evidence of PW.1, who adverted to the facts in accordance with the pleadings and through his chief-examination, Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. Petitioners examined PW.2, a direct witness to the accident, who testified that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased as such the deceased fell down and later died on the spot. Nothing could be elicited during the crossexamination of PW.2 to disbelieve his testimony. The contesting respondent did not let in any evidence. Apart from this Police registered an FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle under Ex.A-1 and, after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Ex.A-3 – copy of inquest report and Ex.A-4 – post-mortem report proves the death of the deceased on account of the fatal injuries received by him in the accident. So, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 14. As there was no definite proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m.. The Tribunal further considered the age of the deceased as30 years and applied multiplier 17. It is to be noted that the deceased was a bachelor. Petitioners are elder brothers, who are said to be legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. So, when the deceased was a bachelor, half of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses but the Tribunal erroneously deducted only 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses, thereby awarded excessive compensation. So, the net annual income which the deceased can contribute towards his family members is Rs.18,000/- p.a. If the same is multiplied with the appropriate multiplier 17, the multiplicand would be Rs.3,06,000/- but the Tribunal erroneously ascertained the multiplicand as Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 17) towards loss of earnings and dependency. In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards damages to clothes and articles and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards damages to clothes and articles and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. It is to be noted that the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering which is not at all tenable. In a death claim, there cannot be any amount to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, the compensation in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 is Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- which amounts to Rs.30,000/-. 15. So, the reasonable compensation which the petitioners are entitled to can be summarized herein below: Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of earnings 4,08,000/- 3,06,000/- 2. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- 3. Damages to clothes and articles 5,000/- 5,000/- 4. Funeral expenses and loss of estate 25,000/- 30,000/- 5. Pain and suffering and loss of love and affection 2,00,000/- Nil TOTAL Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.3,51,000/- 16. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,48,000/- to that of Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit apportioning the compensation equally between the petitioners. The appellants/APSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount, if any, within a period of one month from this date. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.