JUDGMENT: The father of the deceased boy preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 09.06.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: A young boy - Sonti Rangaiah studying 1 st class aged between 5 and 8 years was with his father and they were standing at Gopalapuram bus stop waiting to board an RTC bus to go to Macherla. A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP- 9Z-7049 came there, but it dashed the young boy and ran over him leading to his death. This incident occurred on 29.10.1995 at about 1:00 P.M. About this accident, Crime No.46 of 1995 was registered at Macherla Rural Police Station/Ex.A.1. The dead body of the boy was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3. The father of the deceased boy filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as against A.P.S.R.T.C. in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010 and in its counter A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that it was the fault of the boy as well as his father that caused the death. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. The father of the deceased boy alone testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After analysis of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal recorded that the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was responsible only for 50% of the cause and the remaining 50% of negligence was on part of the father of the deceased boy. Thereafter stating that a mother could have been a dependent, but a father could never be said to be a dependent for the deceased son, it dismissed the claim filed by the father. 7. Before proceeding further, it requires a mention here that the subject matter accident took place in the year 1995. Thereafter stating that a mother could have been a dependent, but a father could never be said to be a dependent for the deceased son, it dismissed the claim filed by the father. 7. Before proceeding further, it requires a mention here that the subject matter accident took place in the year 1995. Thereafter the father of the deceased boy filed M.V.O.P.No.1389 of 2007. On 10.10.2008 that was dismissed for default. Stating that there was no bar of limitation, the father of the deceased then filed M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010 in which the impugned award was passed. 8. The arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellant/claimant is that since the claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the approach of the Claims Tribunal suffers from legal errors as well as factual errors. Reference to ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was made by the Claims Tribunal but the approach adopted was misplaced. The Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the structured formula available in II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and granted needed compensation. The findings of the Claims Tribunal in attributing contributory negligence on the deceased boy and his father are incorrect. On calculations one could notice that the appellant is entitled to more compensation than claimed and 9% interest over it may also be granted. On behalf of the appellant, the following rulings are cited: 1. Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited , (2019) 2 SCC 192 . 2. Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244 . 3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gurram Naga Raju, 2024 0 APHC 31746 . 9. As against the above, Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the view taken by the Claims Tribunal cannot be called as perverse and the conclusions were arrived at based on evidence adduced before it and the very claim before the Claims Tribunal was prosecuted 15 years after the incident. There are no reasonable causes disclosed by the appellant to upset the impugned award. The learned counsel cited National Insurance Company Limited v. Udayagiri Sumathi , [ 2024 APHC 37319 ] . That was a case where the question was whether a married daughter and a major son are legal representatives of the deceased parent. There are no reasonable causes disclosed by the appellant to upset the impugned award. The learned counsel cited National Insurance Company Limited v. Udayagiri Sumathi , [ 2024 APHC 37319 ] . That was a case where the question was whether a married daughter and a major son are legal representatives of the deceased parent. Their Lordships affirmed and held that they are legal representatives and are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency and under conventional heads. 10. The points that fall for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether a father is not entitled for compensation on the death of his minor son in a motor vehicle accident? 2. Whether the impugned award requires interference? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 11. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Therefore, the claimant was in no need of pleading and proving the fault on the opposite party. However, those who oppose the claim are entitled to prove the sole or contributory negligence on part of the deceased. The evidence of PW.1 who witnessed the incident considered along with Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet disclosed that there was no fault on part of the deceased boy and the accident was as a result of negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. The respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. was entitled to prove that the whole or a part of the negligence was on part of the deceased boy. To show that it could have adduced some evidence but as per the record it did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in that regard. When such material was placed before the Claims Tribunal, it was considered and then the Claims Tribunal stated that there was contributory negligence and for that purpose it placed its reasoning on the premise that it was a case of head-on collision between two vehicles. As a matter of fact, it was not a case of head-on collision. Therefore, the entire reasoning process of the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. It is recorded here that the deceased boy or his father/appellant did not contribute to the accident. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal observed that the father could not be a dependent on his deceased minor son. For this it referred to the ruling of their Lordships in Sarla Verma’s case, Supra 1. It is recorded here that the deceased boy or his father/appellant did not contribute to the accident. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal observed that the father could not be a dependent on his deceased minor son. For this it referred to the ruling of their Lordships in Sarla Verma’s case, Supra 1. In paragraph No.15 of the judgment of their Lordships what was considered was as to how much was to be deducted towards possible personal and living expenses of the deceased. It was in that context their Lordships were pleased to say that a father could not be considered as dependent. In the case at hand, it is only the father who is the claimant. The mother of the deceased boy predeceased him. Therefore, the abstract question as to whether a father could be granted any compensation or not and if so how to calculate compensation in cases of death of children around 10 years was laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kishan Gopal’s case, supra 3. That was also a case where the claimant was a father, and the deceased was his minor son aged 10 years. That was also a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Their Lordships referred to the statute and the precedent and stated that as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rs.15,000/- per annum should be considered as notional income for non-earning person and multiplier ‘11’ could be applied. In appropriate cases, their Lordships stated that the notional income could be considered at Rs.30,000/- also. Before their Lordships the parents were aged about 36 years and in such cases following the ruling in Sarla Verma’s case , [Supra 1] multiplier ‘15’ was applied. In the case at hand, the claimant/father was aged 50 years when the claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal. It is in the light of these circumstances, this Court considers that the notional income of the boy could be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and multiplier ‘11’ can be applied. Thus, towards loss of dependency Rs.1,65,000/- is granted. Towards conventional heads as laid down in the above cited ruling Rs.50,000/- is added. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-. 13. As was noticed the claimant was not very vigilant. Thus, towards loss of dependency Rs.1,65,000/- is granted. Towards conventional heads as laid down in the above cited ruling Rs.50,000/- is added. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-. 13. As was noticed the claimant was not very vigilant. He once filed a claim petition in the year 2007 and did not prosecute it and after its dismissal he once again moved his claim in the year 2010. Since the subject matter accident took place in the year 1995 and the delay in prosecuting the claim could not be attributed to respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., this Court considers that 6% interest per annum from the date of claim petition would be appropriate. 14. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 09.06.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010 is set aside. An amount of Rs.2,15,000/- is granted towards compensation with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the amount within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.