JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1.1 The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.598 of 2009, dated 06.09.2010. 1.2 I.A.No.2 of 2014 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code against the findings recorded on issue Nos.2 and 3 in the award passed in O.P.No.598 of 2009 dated 06.09.2010 by the learned Tribunal. 2. Appellant is the respondent and respondents are the petitioners – claimants – cross appellants [I.A.No.2 of 2014]. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the respondent. 3. Petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased [Vishwanath Reddy]. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the late Vishwanath Reddy. 4. On 11.02.2009 Vishwanath Reddy was going on a motor cycle, when he reached the outskirts of Chinna Ghanpur village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 of Siddipet depot coming from Jogipet in opposite direction towards the motor cycle of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, as a result Viswanath Reddy died on the spot. Deceased is aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month by working as work Inspector, Housing Corporation, Kolcharam Mandal under the employment of Director, Velugu Project and also earning Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, petitioners were put to loss of future income and support and prayed to allow the O.P. 5. Respondent filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred and further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 and prayed for dismissal of the O.P. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died in the motor accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. 3) To what relief. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died in the motor accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. 3) To what relief. The learned Tribunal has recasted the first issue which is as follows: 1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 7. Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, got examined PW2– P.Srinivas Reddy, PW3 – T.Venkatlaxmi and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The Driver of the RTC bus is examined as RW1-B.Anjaiah and no documents are marked. 8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents marked thereon, awarded compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which is impugned in the appeal and in I.A.No.2 of 2014. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant [MACMA.No.1602 of 2011] – respondent submits that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RW1, who is an eye-witness to the incident and he deposed that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The learned Tribunal has not considered Exs.A1 and A3 in proper perspective, also failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and prayed to set aside the award. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents - petitioners – cross appellants in I.A.No.2 of 2014 submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and erroneously granted meager compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- contrary to the compensation claimed by the petitioners for Rs.10,00,000/-. Further the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased, awarded less compensation towards loss of future income and the multiplier applied is also wrong, also awarded less compensation towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and prayed to allow the I.A.No.2 of 2014 by modifying the award dated 06.09.2010 and dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.1602 of 2011 and learned counsel for cross appellants in I.A.No.2 of2014. Perused the record. 12. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.1602 of 2011 and learned counsel for cross appellants in I.A.No.2 of2014. Perused the record. 12. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the petitioners, if not, are the petitioners entitled for enhancement (I.A.No.2 of2014)? (ii) Whether the appellant inMACMA.NO.1602 of 2011 has made out any case to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal, if so? (iii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.598 of 2009 dated 06.09.2010 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court in the Appeal and in Cross Objection? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 13. The calculation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Salary Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenditure Rs.2,000/- [3,000 – [1/3rd of 3,000 = 1,000]] 3. Supervisory services (Rs.1,000/- per month) Rs.3,000/- [2,000 + 1,000] 4. Total Annual income Rs.36,000/- (3,000 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘17’ Rs.6,12,000/- (36,000 x 17) 6. Loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 Rs.10,000/- 7. Loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,32,000/- 14.1 The evidence of PW1 is that on 11.02.2009 her husband Vishwanath Reddy was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-23 T/R 2444 from Medak to Rangampet at about 07.00 p.m., when he reached outskirts of Chinna Ghanpur village, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28Z 4441 of Siddipet Depot came from Jogipet side in rash and negligent manner, dashed her husband’s motor cycle, as a result her husband died on the spot. Her husband was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident, working as Work Inspector in Housing Corporation of Kulcharam Mandal under the employment of Director, Velugu project and was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Apart from that he was also earning Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture. 14.2 In her cross-examination she stated that the deceased was not a permanent employee by the date of his death, Ex.A7 does not contain full particulars, she is not an eye-witness to the accident. She stated that the deceased had driving licence, but it was lost at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of her husband. She stated that the deceased had driving licence, but it was lost at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of her husband. 15.1 PW2 is an eye-witness to the accident, he deposed that himself and his friend were coming from Medak in a car, then he saw a motor cycle going ahead of them at a distance of 50 yards and APSRTC bus came in opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle and the deceased died on the spot. 15.2 In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 16.1 The evidence of RW1 is that he was working as a driver in APSRTC for the past 19 years. On 11.02.2009 he was cautiously and caringly driving the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4441 belonging to Siddipet from Sangareddy to Medak. At about 07.00 p.m., when he reached Chinnaghanpur outskirts, a motor cycle came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus. The rider of the motor cycle could not control his vehicle and was responsible for the accident and he reported the incident to the police. 16.2 In his cross-examination he stated that charge sheet is filed against him. He denied the suggestion that due to his negligence accident has occurred. 17.1 On the complaint lodged by Arigae Ramesh on 11.02.2009, police Kolcharam has registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2009 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the APSRTC bus No.AP-28-Z-4441[Ex.A1]. Ex.A2 is the PME report. Ex.A3 is the charge sheet filed by the police under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. PW2 is shown as LW2 in the charge sheet as an eye witness to the accident. Ex.A4 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector report, which shows the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the bus and Ex.A6 is the inquest report. 17.2 The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash driving of RW1, more over RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that charge sheet is filed against him. 17.2 The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash driving of RW1, more over RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that charge sheet is filed against him. 18.1 Insofar as the earnings of the deceased Vishwanath Reddy is concerned, Ex.A7 is the salary certificate issued by Treasurer of Zilla Mahila Samakya. PW3 is the Treasurer of Zilla Mahila Samakya, Sangareddy, she deposed that the deceased worked as work Inspector in their department since two months prior to his death and he was working at Kulcharam Mandal and Rs.5,500/- is paid as salary to the deceased per month and she has issued Ex.A7. Deceased would be eligible for the future promotions and hike in the salary. 18.2 In her cross-examination she stated that Ex.A7 does not reflect the particulars of the salary and the deductions and the deceased was not a permanent employee. So also Ex.A7 does not reflect the period from which the deceased was employed and she did not bring any record pertaining to the future promotions. She denied the suggestion that the deceased is eligible for promotions. 19. Ex.A7 is the salary certificate dated 13.05.2009, wherein under different heads the deceased received an amount of Rs.5,500/- towards salary for month of January 2009. Deductions are not shown in Ex.A7, but the net salary of the deceased is shown therein as Rs.5,500/-. 20. The learned Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month which is against the evidence of PW3 with that of Ex.A7. As the deceased was not a permanent employee and this Court feels that the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.4,500/- per month after standard deductions. 21. Petitioners contended that the deceased also used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture. Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kowdipally Mandal, which shows that the deceased was possessing various extents of lands in different survey numbers to an extent of Ac.5-13 gts and was earning Rs.2,25,000/- on agriculture. Ex.A9 is the pahani for the year 2007-2008, which shows different extent of lands in different survey numbers total admeasuring Ac.5-13 gts showing the deceased as pattadhar and possessor. The Tribunal has awarded supervisory services at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Ex.A9 is the pahani for the year 2007-2008, which shows different extent of lands in different survey numbers total admeasuring Ac.5-13 gts showing the deceased as pattadhar and possessor. The Tribunal has awarded supervisory services at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. As the petitioners are claiming Rs.50,000/- per annum towards agricultural income of the deceased, this Court fixes an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month on agriculture income, which arrives at Rs.30,000/- per annum as he possessed Ac.5-13 gts of land as per Ex.A9. 22. As the petitioners are three in number, the deduction is 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown as 26 years in the claim petition as on the date of accident which is also reflected in Ex.A2-PME report and Ex.A6 – inquest report. Hence the age of the deceased is taken as 26 years and the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ which is applied by the Tribunal and it is correct. 23. The calculation arrived by the Court is as under: Sl. No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Court 1. Income per month (Salary: Rs.4,500/- per month + Income on agriculture: Rs.2,500/- per month) Rs.7,000/- (4,500 + 2,500) 2. Deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenditure v. Delhi [Smt. Sarla Varma Transport Corporation1] Rs.4,650/- [7,000 – 2,350] [1/3rd of 7,000 = 2,333 rounded off to Rs.2,350/-] 3. Annual income Rs.55,800/- [4,650 x 12] 4. Multiplier ‘17’ [Sarla Varma’s case] Rs.9,48,600/- (55,800 x 17) 5. Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of love and affection to petitioner No.1 Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs.10,000/- 7. Pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.9,93,600/- 24. In the result MACMA is dismissed and I.A.No.2 of 2014 is allowed in part as under: a) The impugned award dated 06.09.2010, passed in O.P.No.598 of 2009, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,32,000/- is enhanced to Rs.9,93,600/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. c) The respondent is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The respondent is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Cross appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.5,96,160/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) Cross appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,98,720/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s pending if any shall stand closed.