JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. A.P.S.R.T.C. / Respondent No.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District & Sessions judge, Rajahmundry (for short “the MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2014 has filed present appeal questioning the decree and judgment dated 25.11.2014, where under as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,14,000/-. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT and Respondent No.5 is the driver of the bus. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and Respondents. Case of claimants: 4. One Gundu Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 to 4 met with an accident on 03.06.2008. While the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3364 (hereinafter referred to “the offending vehicle”) came from the behind and dashed the cycle. Due to which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on back of his head and all over the body. He was shifted to GGH Hospital, Rajahmundry. From there he was shifted to V. Krishnamurthy's Hospital for better treatment. However on 06.07.2008 he breathed his last due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants spent huge amount for treatment etc. Deceased was working as a Watchman in a Iron and Cement godown at Rajahmundry and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost all kinds of support from the deceased and as they being legal heirs and dependents entitled for just and reasonable compensation. (ii). A case in crime No.118 of 2008 was registered in Bommuru Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted. Case of Respondent No.2: 5. The allegations as to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is incorrect. The two cyclists were coming side by side while talking to each other. Inspite of driver of the offending vehicle sounded horn, slowed down the bus and applied brakes, in confusion cyclist fell down and sustained injuries. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased himself was negligent. The two cyclists were coming side by side while talking to each other. Inspite of driver of the offending vehicle sounded horn, slowed down the bus and applied brakes, in confusion cyclist fell down and sustained injuries. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased himself was negligent. The death is not due to the accident injuries and there is no proximity between the death and the injuries caused due to the accident. The claimants shall prove that they are the only legal heirs and dependents on the deceased apart from age, occupation, income of the deceased. 6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: (1). Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3364 by its driver, 1st Respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the Respondents.? (3) To what relief? 7. Evidence before the learned MACT: For the Claimants For the Respondents Ex. No. Description Exhibit No. Description Ex.A1 F.I.R.in Crime No.118 of 2008 - Nil - Ex.A2 Wound Certificate of deceased Ex.A3 Charge Sheet against driver of the offending vehicle Ex.A4 Bunch of Medical Bills pertaining to deceased Ex.A5 C.T. Scan films pertaining to deceased Ex.A6 C.T. Scan Report pertaining to deceased Ex.A7 Original Lab reports pertaining to deceased Ex.A8 Case Sheet pertaining to deceased Ex.A9 Photographs along with C.D. pertaining to deceased Ex.A10 Death Certificate of deceased G. Rama Rao Ex.X1 Case Sheet pertaining to deceased Ex.X2 X-rays pertaining to deceased Ex.X3 Case Sheet pertaining to deceased Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Gundu Ramanamma (Claimant No.1-wife of deceased) RW.1 Kandrapu Suri Babu (Driver of the Bus) PW.2 Dr.T.Ramesh Kishore (Doctor who treated the deceased) PW.3 Dr.D.V.Krishna Murthy (Doctor who treated the deceased) PW.4 Pinniti Durga Prasad (Eye witness) Findings of the learned MACT: 8. PW.1, wife of deceased is not an eye witness to the accident. She has referred to FIR, wound certificate, charge sheet, death certificate etc. However, the evidence of PW.4 /Pinniti Durga Prasad who is an eyewitness shows the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus driver admitted during cross examination that Ex.A3 charge sheet was laid against him. He pleaded guilty and fine was imposed by the concerned Magistrate. She has referred to FIR, wound certificate, charge sheet, death certificate etc. However, the evidence of PW.4 /Pinniti Durga Prasad who is an eyewitness shows the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus driver admitted during cross examination that Ex.A3 charge sheet was laid against him. He pleaded guilty and fine was imposed by the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus in occurrence of the accident is fit to be accepted. 9. PW.3 / doctor who treated the deceased denied the suggestion that injuries are simple in nature and they would not lead to death. PW.2 / Dr.T. Ramesh Kishore deposed that the deceased was discharged on 19.06.2008. He also denied the suggestion that injuries are simple in nature. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 coupled with Ex.A4 to A10 suggest that the injuries sustained by the deceased are the cause for death. As per case sheet, the age of deceased is 55 years. Income of deceased can be taken at Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the same comes to Rs.24,000/-. Multiplier applicable is 11' whereby the entitlement for compensation under the head of loss of income / dependency comes to Rs.2,64,000/-. 10. Claimant No.1 being wife entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 being children entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. Claimants entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses and costs of litigation. Under all heads, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,14,00/-. Arguments in the appeal 11. For appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C.: 1.The learned MACT failed to appreciate the negligence on the part of the deceased. 2. Quantification of compensation is done ignoring the guidance of the superior Courts. The compensation awarded is abnormal and exorbitant. Multiplier adopted is not correct. 3. The learned MACT erred in awarding more compensation than what claimed. For claimants 12. There is no bar of awarding more compensation than what claimed. Compensation granted under the impugned award requires enhancement, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 13. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 14. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 03.06.2008 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle or whether deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the pleaded accident? Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 14. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 03.06.2008 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle or whether deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the pleaded accident? 2.) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what shall be liability of Respondent No.2/ appellant? 3) Whether the impugned decree and award dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned MACT are sustainable in law and on facts or whether any interference is necessary, if so, on what counts and to what extent.? 4) What is the result of appeal.? Point No.1 : 15. R.W.1 is the driver of the RTC bus. During chief examination he has denied the negligence. During cross examination his evidence is as follows: “it is true that the concerned police filed charge sheet under Ex.A3 against me after thorough investigation. It is true that I paid fine before Special Judicial 2nd class Magistrate, Rajahmundry by admitting my guilt” 16. Ex.A3-charge sheet, it was laid under Section 338 of IPC. From Ex.A3 and evidence of RW.1, it is clear that the accused was charge sheeted. PW.4 is an eye witness to the accident deposed about the bus coming and hitting the cyclist from behind, on which the deceased was proceeding. Except disputing the presence of PW.4 nothing is elicited to doubt the evidence of PW.4. Therefore, the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the RTC bus /offending vehicle are fit to be accepted with the evidence available on record. Death of deceased due to accident: 17. PW.1 claimed that deceased died due to the pleaded accident. Date of accident is 03.06.2008 registration of FIR on 03.06.2008. Ex.A4 are the medical bills spreading in between the months of June and July of 2008. Ex.A5 is the medical report. The impression stated under Ex.A6 is that “Calcified Granuloma in Left Parietal Region.” 18. Ex.A7 is the original labolatory report. Ex.A8 case sheet maintained with V. Krishnamurthy's Hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A9 is photographs along with CD indicating the treatment condition of the deceased. Ex.A10 is the death certificate dated 29.12.2012 indicating the date of death as on 05.07.2008. 03.06.2008 is date of accident and 05.07.2008 is date of death. Ex.A7 is the original labolatory report. Ex.A8 case sheet maintained with V. Krishnamurthy's Hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A9 is photographs along with CD indicating the treatment condition of the deceased. Ex.A10 is the death certificate dated 29.12.2012 indicating the date of death as on 05.07.2008. 03.06.2008 is date of accident and 05.07.2008 is date of death. Ex.X1 is the case sheet, indicating the wound on scalp and bleeding etc. 19. PW.2-Doctor / Civil Surgeon specialist stated that on 03.06.2006 patient by name G. Rama Rao was admitted in male surgical ward with a deep lacerated wound of 4x2 cms on the back of the Scalp region on the right side. The patient was conscious and coherent at the time of admission. On 04.06.2008 patient was found drowsy as such he was advised to go GGH, Kakinada. On the same day the patient was sent to CT scan to Brain. The CT scan report showed that there is a Calcified Garnulama in the left partial region. He has further stated that injuries sustained by the patient were grievous in nature due to which the patient develops Hemiplegic which will cause death. There was every chance of death because of the said injury. During cross examination it was elicited that the treatment was given free of cost. However, he has denied the other suggestions as to normal condition of patient deceased at the time of discharge etc. 20. PW.3 / Dr. D.V. Krishna Murthy, Neuro Surgeion stated about treatment given. He has referred to age of the deceased as 65' years, admission on 23.06.2008 and discharge on 01.07.2008. He has stated that the patient was suffering with “Quadri Paresis” (that is weakness of all four limbs) with bed sources due to an alleged Toad Traffic Accident. MRI scan costs about Rs.6,000/-. Total cost of treatment at their hospital is Rs.15,000/-. Ex. X3 is the case sheet maintained by their hospital. Ex.A4 is the bunch of medical bills and CT Scan Bill pertains to the petitioner G. Rama Rao during impatient period. During cross examination, he has denied suggestion that injuries could not lead to death. With the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and other documentary evidence covered by Ex.A4 to A10, the finding of the learned MACT that cause of death is due to injuries is found rational and reasonable. Therefore, the findings are fit for acceptance. Hence, accepted and concurred. 21. With the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and other documentary evidence covered by Ex.A4 to A10, the finding of the learned MACT that cause of death is due to injuries is found rational and reasonable. Therefore, the findings are fit for acceptance. Hence, accepted and concurred. 21. In view of the discussion made above, the point No.1 framed is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that pleaded accident dated 03.06.2008, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and Gundru Rama Rao died due to the said accident. Point Nos.2 and 3: 22. Since the point Nos.2 and 3 are interlinked, they are being discussed and answered together. Precedential Guidance and legal position: 23. Hon'ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directing adoption of multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 23(ii). Hon'ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. 24(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others , [ 2017(16) SCC 680 ] case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. (ii). The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. (ii). The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon'ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three two years in Pranay Sethi’s case. 25. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon'ble apex court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. 26. Claimants pleaded that income of the deceased is Rs.3,.000/- per month. The age of claimant No.1 mentioned at 50 years. PW.3 stated that age of the deceased is 65 years in its chief examination itself. Case sheet Ex.A3 is indicating the age of the deceased is 65 years. The entries are natural. Therefore, the age of the deceased taken at 65 years, but not 55 years as adopted by the learned MACT. 27. Even Ex.A6 is also indicating age of deceased is 65' years, since the age of deceased is certainly more than 60 years. There is no question of chance of adding future prospects. Income of deceased comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum, even if the income claimed by the claimants is accepted. As the clear dependency is with Claimant No.1 and other claimants are major sons and married daughter and 1/3rd of the income deceased is fit to be deducted towards personal expenses. Claimant No.1 is the wife and she can be considered as dependent / legal heir. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are major sons and major daughter and they are not legally dependants. 28. For the age group of 60-65, multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma ’s case is 7'. Hence the same is fit to be awarded. Claimant No.1 is the wife and she can be considered as dependent / legal heir. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are major sons and major daughter and they are not legally dependants. 28. For the age group of 60-65, multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma ’s case is 7'. Hence the same is fit to be awarded. Then the entitlement of claimants under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,68,000/- (24000x7). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.2,64,000/- under the head of loss of income / dependency is fit to be scaled down accordingly. Further, compensation as to claimant No.1 awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium is not correct. The compensation awarded towards loss of estate at Rs.1,00,000/-, Claimant Nos.2 to 4 is also fit to be scaled down and Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses fit to be scaled down. 29. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. the entitlement of claimants for the compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of dependency / income Rs. 2,64,000/- Rs. 1,68,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 15,000/- (iii) Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- (iv) Funeral expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 15,000/- (v) Transportation Expenses and medical expenditure etc. -Nil- Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 5,14,000/- Rs. 3,73,000/- Interest (per annum) 9% 9% 30. In view of the above discussion, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered, concluding that claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,73,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and the impugned award require modification accordingly. Point No.4: 31. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. (i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.5,14,000/- is reduced to Rs.3,73,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. (ii). Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each with proportional interest and Claimant No.1 is entitled for balance amount which shall be inclusive of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium. (iii). All the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares of compensation amount at once on deposit. (iv) No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.