JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.2023 of 2006 dated 29.09.2009. 2. Appellants are the respondents and respondents are the petitioners. 3. Respondent No.2 – petitioner No.2 died during pendency of the appeal. His legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 and 6 vide order dated 09.11.2020, in I.A.No.3 of 2019. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 - petitioners filed a petition under 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of late P.Xavier. 5. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 - petitionersNos.2 to 4 are the children of late P.Xavier. 6. On 17.12.2014 at about 06.30 hours, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-3991 was proceeding towards Hyderabad on Rajeev Rahadari and after reaching NISA, Hakimpet the driver of APSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, went on a wrong side and dashed P.Xavier. P.Xavier received multiple head injuries and died on the spot. On the complaint, a case in crime No.488 of 2004 is registered by PS Alwal under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus. Xavier was working as MTD (Civilian) driver in Hakimpet Air Force Station, was earning Rs.11,281/- per month and contributing the same to the family. The deceased was hale and healthy, was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and prayed to award compensation jointly and severally. 7. Appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter and denied the age, occupation and the accident. They further stated that the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-3991 started at MGBS at 05.15 hours and there was a curve at APSRTC Zonal Training Center and there were speed breakers prior to the said curve. Thus the driver of the bus completely slowed down by changing the gear in view of the speed breakers and curve. After negotiating the speed breakers, the deceased was found coming on the scooter bearing No. HYT-1188 and in that process he was overtaking a lorry on a road curve and he was coming in extreme right side of the road in the opposite direction of the bus. After negotiating the speed breakers, the deceased was found coming on the scooter bearing No. HYT-1188 and in that process he was overtaking a lorry on a road curve and he was coming in extreme right side of the road in the opposite direction of the bus. On observing the same, the driver of the bus completely swerved to the left side and slowed down, in spite of the same the scooterist came on the wrong side of the road, could not control the same in high speed and dashed the APSRTC bus. Due to the impact the right side bumper bent and headlight was broken. Deceased was in high speed on a scooter, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and the appellants - respondents are not liable to pay compensation. 8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident resulting in death of P.Xavier occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-3991? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 3) To what relief? 9. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 - Kaloji Anand Chari, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Appellants – respondents did not led any evidence. 10. The learned Tribunal, after analysing the evidence adduced by the respondents - petitioners coupled with the documents, has awarded an amount of Rs.12,03,276/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition [23.09.2006] till the date of deposit against the respondentNos.1 and 2 [appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein], which is impugned in the appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal went wrong in coming to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. The learned Tribunal failed to see that the bus was proceeding slowly as there was curve and speed breaker and the deceased was on his scooter bearing No.HYT-1188, who was on a wrong side of the road and was overtaking a lorry on a road curve, dashed the APSRTC bus due to this sudden impact bumper got damaged and the light of the bus was broken. The learned Tribunal ought to have applied the principles of Res Ipsa loqutor and the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the scooter and prayed to allow the appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the facts of the case in proper prospective, rightly awarded the compensation, no interference is called for and pray to dismiss the appeal. 13. Heard learned counsel, perused the material. 14. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellants have made out any case to set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P. No.2023 of 2006 dated 29.09.2009. 15. Complaint is lodged by J.P.S.Chauhan before PS Alwal on 17.12.2004 stating that at about 06.30 hours on 17.12.2004 road accident has taken place on Karimnagar highway in front of NISA involving APSRTC bus No.AP-11-Z-3991 and P.Xavier died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Based on the said complaint Ex.A1-FIR No.488/2004 is registered on the same day under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus. 16. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed against Konda Surya Rao who is the driver of the crime vehicle. PW2 is shown as LW4 as a witness in the charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the post-mortem report and Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.A5 is the accident report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which shows that RTC bus has also got damages i.e. (1) driver side bumper damaged, (2) headlamp glass broken and (3) indicator cover broken and the opinion is that accident has not occurred due to mechanical failures of the vehicle. 17. The evidence of the respondent No.1 - PW1 is the replica of the claim petition. In her cross-examination she stated that her husband was working as MTD driver in Air Force, it is a permanent job and she has three sons and her elder son died 16.04.2008 and she came to know about the death of her husband through her elder son who happened to cross the accident spot while going to the college. Accident taken place on 17.12.2004 and her husband was wearing helmet on the date of accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband was overtaking the lorry, he could not control thereby hit the APSRTC bus and that the claim made by them is excessive. Accident taken place on 17.12.2004 and her husband was wearing helmet on the date of accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband was overtaking the lorry, he could not control thereby hit the APSRTC bus and that the claim made by them is excessive. 18.1 PW2 deposed that on 17.12.2004 at about 06.30 hours he was proceeding to his office, on reaching near NISA Hakeempet on Rajiv Rahadhari one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-3991 was proceeding towards Hyderabad on a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, went wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooterist by name Paul Xavier from opposite side. 18.2 In his cross examination he stated that he was 15 yards behind the deceased and there was no vehicle in front of the deceased vehicle, there was straight curve at the accident spot and the bus was getting down from the stop. Accident has taken place in between 06.30 to 07.30 a.m. APSRTC bus used its breaks but the same came close to the scooter at the side curve. Deceased was not wearing helmet and he was not behind the deceased vehicle, giving false evidence. Appellants-respondents have not adduced any evidence to show that fault is on the deceased and he was trying to overtake the lorry at a curve. 19. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 goes to show that it is the driver of the APSRTC bus who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident due to which the deceased Xavier died on the spot. Hence the learned Tribunal has rightly answered issue No.1, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 20. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, Ex.A6 is the salary certificate of the deceased dated 01.09.2005, the total salary drawn is Rs.11,281/- and the deceased was in Indian Air Force with effect from 17.12.2004 FN. Ex.A7 is the service certificate of the deceased issued by wing commander Air Force station Hakimpet who expired on 17.12.2004 and his basic pay as on November 2004 is Rs.5,600/-. 21. The age of the deceased is mentioned as 45 years as on the date of accident in the claim petition, which is also shown in Ex.A3-postmortem report and Ex.A4-inquest report. 21. The age of the deceased is mentioned as 45 years as on the date of accident in the claim petition, which is also shown in Ex.A3-postmortem report and Ex.A4-inquest report. Hence, the tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and applied multiplier as ‘13’. 22. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation as under: S. No Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Salary Rs.11,281/- 2. 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses Rs.7,521/- [11,281 – (1/3rd of 11,281 = 3,760/-)] 3. Annual income Rs.90,252/- (7,521 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘13’ Rs.11,73,276/- (90,252 x 13) 5. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,03,276/- 23. Appellants – respondents have not produced any evidence to show that the fault is on the deceased and he was trying to overtake the lorry at the curve of the road. There is no requirement to add the insurer of the scooter, which involved in the accident and the same is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The principles of res ipsa loqutor do not apply to the facts of the case and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate. 24. The learned Tribunal has answered the contentions raised by the appellant in detail in its the award at paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 and awarded just compensation to the respondents. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and requires no interference of this court. 25. Appellants have not made out any case to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Appeal deserves no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 26. In the result, MACMA is dismissed without cost. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s stands closed.