JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 06.08.2018, in M.V.O.P. No. 370 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal i.e. Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (“Tribunal” for short) whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with regard to the death of Sake Ramana (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.06.2014 at 7.45 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.7,78,500/- as compensation. 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 petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 370 of 2014 according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that: The deceased Ramana was hale and healthy. He was aged about 28 years. He was doing milk business and coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 17.06.2014 at 7.45 p.m. deceased Ramana and one Murali were proceeding on the motor bike, bearing No. AP-28-C-8684 from Gummepalli village to Madugupalli village. When they reached C. Bandameedapalli village on Ananthapuramu-Tadipatri road, one Bangi Venkata Naresh Babu (R6) drove the Pulsar bike, bearing No. AP-02-AN-9241 in their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. The deceased Ramana and the pillion rider Murali fell on the road. Meanwhile Boya Nallappa (R5), who was driving the vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP-02-TA-5858 in a rash and negligent manner, came from their behind, and dashed against the deceased and dragged him on the road for some distance and the deceased Ramana sustained severe injuries. He died at Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, while taking treatment. In this connection a case was registered in Cr. No. 84/2014 of Singanamala PS for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against R5 and R6. Petitioners alleged that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R5 and R6 only. R1 to R4, being the insured and the insurers of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Hence, the petition. 4. The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 remained ex-parte and the claim against respondent No. 7 was abated. 5. R1 to R4, being the insured and the insurers of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Hence, the petition. 4. The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 remained ex-parte and the claim against respondent No. 7 was abated. 5. The respondent No. 2 got filed a counter contending in substance that it is the insurer of TATA ACE, bearing No. AP-02-TA-5858. The accident was occurred when the deceased drove his motorbike in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the rules. The respondent No. 5 was driving the TATA ACE slowly and meticulously and the petitioners managed the police and registered a false case. When respondent No. 5 dashed against the deceased and the deceased fell down on the road, there was no space between the offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE and the place where the deceased fell down. Hence there was no fault on the part of respondent No. 5. The claim is bad for non-joinder of rider, insured and insurer of Pulsar motor bike. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the driver of TATA ACE bearing No. AP-02/TA 5858 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident? (2) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was under their control at the time of the accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how to what extent and from which respondent? (4) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent, RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and Ex.B1, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues in favor of the petitioners and awarded the compensation as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues in favor of the petitioners and awarded the compensation as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent No. 2/Insurance Company 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 whether the award, dated 06.08.2018, in M.V.O.P. No. 370 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal i.e. Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point: 10. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the Tribunal erroneously found that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in driving the offending vehicles. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of TATA ACE and respondent No. 2 is its insurer. Respondent No. 3 is the financier/owner of the pulsar bike bearing No. AP-02-AN-9241. The Tribunal did not fix up the responsibility against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Even otherwise there was no rash and negligent driving manner as alleged. The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation against respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. There was contributory negligence on the part of both the offending vehicles, but the responsibility was fixed against the insurance company i.e. appellant-insurer of the TATA ACE vehicle only. With the above contentions, she would submit that the award may be set aside and the compensation has to be reduced drastically. 11. Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants would canvass a contention that the Tribunal rightly considered the entire material available on record and with appropriate reasons awarded just compensation which needs no interference. 12. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, who was no other than the first petitioner, she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 was the attested copy of the inquest report. Ex.A3 was the attested copy of the post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the attested copy of the charge sheet. According to the evidence of PW-2, he was a witness who supported the case of the petitioners. Through her examination, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 was the attested copy of the inquest report. Ex.A3 was the attested copy of the post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the attested copy of the charge sheet. According to the evidence of PW-2, he was a witness who supported the case of the petitioners. Nothing could be elicited during the course of the cross examination of PW-2, who was a direct witness to the occurrence to disbelieve his testimony. 13. Apart from this, the police after due investigation filed a charge sheet under Ex.A4 against the driver of pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP-02-AN-9241 and driver of TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. AP-02-TA 5858. It is a case where the drivers of the offending vehicles remained ex-parte and they did not contest the claim. Hence, the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the pulsar motorbike as well as the driver of the TATA ACE vehicle. However, the major impact of the accident is such that when the deceased was hit by a pulsar motorbike he fell on the road and then the TATA ACE vehicle ran over him and dragged him. So, the major reason for the death of the deceased was on account of the hit made by the TATA ACE vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly made appropriate findings in this regard. 14. Now, turning to the quantum of compensation, when the period of the accident was in the year 2014, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.150/- per day. In the year 2014, a person like the deceased could have easily earned more than Rs.150/- per day even by doing physical labor. Hence, the Tribunal rightly considered the notional income as that of Rs.54,000/- per annum (i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month X 12). The Tribunal considering the fact that the family members of the deceased are five in number and deducted 1/4th of the amount towards the living expenses, thereby arriving at Rs.40,500/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier “17” arrived at Rs.6,88,500/-. With regard to the conventional heads, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ambulance charges, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection and parental care. 15. The Tribunal applied the multiplier “17” arrived at Rs.6,88,500/-. With regard to the conventional heads, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and ambulance charges, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection and parental care. 15. It is to be noted that in view of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 SCC Online SC 1270 case, the conventional heads of compensation insofar as the wife of the deceased is concerned, it is Rs.40,000/-. The funeral expenses and loss of estate should be Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) thereby it amounts to Rs.70,000/-. Apart from this, in view of Janabai and Others vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0985/2022 case, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.80,000/-. However, it is an Appeal filed by the insurance company so as to reduce the compensation. There are no cross-objections. 16. Under the circumstances, the overall heads of funeral and ambulance charges to a tune of Rs.25,000/- consortium of Rs.40,000/- and loss of love and affection is Rs.25,000/- which needs no interference. Hence, the overall compensation of Rs.7,78,500/- needs no interference. 17. Turning to the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE has no driving license, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that he was holding a license for driving non-transport vehicles. The Tribunal found that the driving skills to drive transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles are the same. The Tribunal arrived at such findings by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ayyappan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2013 (7) SCC 62 . Hence, the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license cannot be considered. There is no doubt that the Tribunal did not fix up the responsibility against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. There is no dispute that the appellant is no other than the insurance company which has an insurance policy. The major part of the accident was on account of the driving made by the driver of TATA ACE vehicle. Due to paucity of the evidence, the Tribunal was not able to fix up the separate responsibility against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, it is the bounded duty of the appellant to issue an insurance policy for the TATA ACE vehicle to honor the award. Due to paucity of the evidence, the Tribunal was not able to fix up the separate responsibility against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, it is the bounded duty of the appellant to issue an insurance policy for the TATA ACE vehicle to honor the award. As this Court already pointed out, the TATA ACE vehicle ran over the deceased and dragged him, as such, the death of the deceased occurred. 18. Having regard to the above, this Court is not inclined to fix up the responsibility against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and there are no merits in the Appeal, as such, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Appeal 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 this date. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.