JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2009 dated 08.10.2010. 2. The appellant is A.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 6573 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are wife and parents of Kandregula Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. Respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime bus. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 29.09.2007, while the deceased walking in the extreme left side of the road to go to his village Ramannapalem, when he reached opposite to Bhaskara Medical Shop on the main road of State Highway No.214 in Veeravasaram Village at about 04.30 p.m., the crime bus was coming in high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased, thrown him towards rear side of the bus, resulting death of the deceased due to the severe injuries sustained in the accident. ii). By the time of accident, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing coolie works and that the claimants are depending on the earnings of the deceased. They being dependents, they claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the crime bus. 5. The 2nd respondent/appellant filed written statement, which was adopted by the 1st respondent/driver, by denying the averments in the petition that: There is no proof regarding age and income of the deceased by the time of his death; that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus; that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident and thereby, A.P.S.R.T.C. is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 1.Whether the accident dated 29.09.2007, which resulting in death of Kandregula Venkateswara Rao occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 6573, driven by its driver 1st respondent as alleged in the petition? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents? and 3.To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. None were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime bus, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. It is against the said order; the present appeal is preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C. 10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 11. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not driver of the crime bus; that the tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.4,91,000/-, which is highly disproportionate; that the tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of Rs.36,000/- for his person expenditure instead of 1/3rd and thereby, prays to allow the appeal. 12. Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants submits that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the crime bus; that the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants against driver and owner of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any flaw in awarding the compensation to the claimants against the appellant? and 2. To what relief ? 14. POINT No.1: It is not in dispute that no appeal preferred by the claimants against the award passed by the Tribunal as well the death of the deceased in the incident. 15. The only three major points urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant are that i). awarding compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- is highly disproportionate; ii). 14. POINT No.1: It is not in dispute that no appeal preferred by the claimants against the award passed by the Tribunal as well the death of the deceased in the incident. 15. The only three major points urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant are that i). awarding compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- is highly disproportionate; ii). tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of Rs.36,000/- for his personal expenditure, which is not correct and iii). there is a contributory negligence. 16. This Court perused the award passed by the tribunal. Though the petitioners claimed that deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, the tribunal after elaborate discussion came to a conclusion that the earnings of the deceased is only Rs.3,000/- per month. At that rate, tribunal made calculations that Rs.36,000/- per annum. Admittedly, there are three dependents, thereby, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure and the remaining earnings has go to the dependents i.e., claimants. Thereby, the tribunal rightly calculated and awarded the compensation to the claimants and this Court has no reason to meddle with the same. 17. As far as contributory negligence is concerned, there is no material on record especially evidence from the driver of the crime bus i.e., 4th respondent herein to speak that there is negligence on the part of the deceased while crossing the road as contended by the appellant. But, herein this case, either oral or documentary evidence adduced by the driver as well owner of the crime bus to appreciate the said contention. On the other hand, the claimants got examined P.W.2, who said to be eyewitnesses to the incident and he categorically testified about the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus in causing the incident. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. Viewing from any angle, this court could not find any tenable grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal, thereby, there are no merits in this appeal. Thus, this point is answered against the appellant. 18. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2009 dated 08.10.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 18. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2009 dated 08.10.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.