JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the TSRTC aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.414 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 05.07.2017, in the morning hours, the deceased left from his house on his TATA ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15-TV-2893 and on the way, at about 1.30 P.M., when he reached the outskirts of Sulthanabad village, he has stopped his vehicle by the side of the road to attend nature call and after attending nature call and while he was crossing the road, in the mean time one TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 being driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed dashed him, due to which he received grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is their case that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy and he was owner-cum-driver of TATA ACE Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-15TV-2893 and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments in the petition with regard to age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the RTC bus and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as he suddenly jumped out from the shrubs to the left side of the road to cross the road without observing the vehicles and the traffic and due to the sudden jump, the deceased lost control over himself, fell down and sustained injuries which lead to his death. 6. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the death of Sri Kallepalli Jeevan was due to Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 05.07.2017 and is it due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-3645 driven by its driver? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal needs any interference? 4) To what relief? 7. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 & Ex.X.1 . On behalf of TSRTC R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, TSRTC preferred the present appeal to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. Heard the submission of Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. No vakalath was filed on behalf of the respondents. 10. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of RTC bus was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident and that the deceased due to his own negligence has jumped out from the bushes, as a result fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1 and has fastened the liability on RTC. He further submitted that the Tribunal granted exorbitant amount of compensation under various heads and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has passed its orders on sound reasoning and has granted just compensation and therefore prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the Driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-29Z-3645? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 3. Whether the order and decree of Tribunal needs any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. One Saliganti Venkatesh-P.W.2 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. In his chief examination he deposed with regard to occurrence of the accident. 3. Whether the order and decree of Tribunal needs any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. One Saliganti Venkatesh-P.W.2 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. In his chief examination he deposed with regard to occurrence of the accident. He stated that on the date of accident i.e., on 05.07.2017, while he was proceeding from Sulthanabad to Peddapalli with passengers, at about 1.30 P.M., when he reached the outskirts of Sulthanabad, in the mean time he observed that the deceased parked his auto by the side of the road for attending to nature call on the other side of the road and while he was crossing the road, in the mean time the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP- Z-3645 was proceeding towards Peddapally being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed ran over the deceased. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that an RTO official was checking the vehicles on Sulthanabad-Peddapally road. Though, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC that since ‘vehicle check’ was going on in the said road, there is no question of RTC bus going at high speed. It is not the case of the respondents that the accident occurred at the vehicle checking point. It is revealed from the F.I.R and charge sheet that the accident occurred on the said road, when the deceased jumped out from the bushes, the RTC bus ran over him resulting in his death. Thus based on the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the F.I.R and charge sheet, it is held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC driver. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point NO.2: b) P.W.1 asserted that the deceased used to run an auto for his livelihood and in support of their contention, petitioners filed Ex.A.7/certificate issued by the Head Master, Gayathri Concept School, Peddapalli. A perusal of the said exhibit reveals that the auto of the deceased was engaged for their institution for the academic year 2015-16 till the death of the deceased i.e., 05.10.2017 and that he was being paid Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove Ex.A.7, P.W.3 is examined who is working as a teacher and also in-charge of Gayatri Concept School, Peddapalli. A perusal of the said exhibit reveals that the auto of the deceased was engaged for their institution for the academic year 2015-16 till the death of the deceased i.e., 05.10.2017 and that he was being paid Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove Ex.A.7, P.W.3 is examined who is working as a teacher and also in-charge of Gayatri Concept School, Peddapalli. His evidence reveals that he engaged the services of the deceased and that the deceased used to drive his auto for their requirements and they paid Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, it is revealed that the deceased was running an auto for Gayathri Concept School for his livelihood. It is contended by the petitioners that the deceased was the owner of the auto and a copy of the R.C/Ex.A.8 is filed. Hence, considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month which appears to be justified. The tribunal has taken into consideration the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , [AIR 2017 SCC 5157] in assessing the compensation by awarding future prospects. As per the P.M.E report-Ex.A.3 the age of the deceased is reflected as 35 years. Ex.A.2/certified copy of the inquest report discloses the age of the deceased as 45 years and P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased also stated the age of the deceased to be 45 years. Thus, the Tribunal awarded future prospects of 25% and further has also adopted 1/3rd deduction, since the claimants are three in number. Further, it is observed that the Tribunal has taken the right multiplier of “14”. Thus, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to be in between 41 to 45 years. As per the Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal has also awarded amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and has arrived at just compensation of Rs.14,70,000/-. Therefore, it is held that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3: c) In view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal do not need any interference. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered. Point No.4: 14. In the result, the MACMA filed by TSRTC is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.