JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’) by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) arises out of an award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum- Judge, Family Court –Cum- III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.228 of 2018, dated 22.12.2021. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-petitioner Nos.1 to 5 filed petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for the death of Sajid Hussain @ Sayeed Hussain from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally in a road traffic accident which occurred on 14.09.2016. 3. On 14.09.2016, Sajid Hussain @ Sayeed Hussain along with his wife and children and her sister-in-law Rukshana started from Karimnagar and went to Hyderabad to visit the house of his elder sister-in-law by name Rehana Begum. After getting down at MGBS, Sajid Hussain went to attend nature call and while he was returning back to the platform at about 2330 hours, one APSRTC Super Luxury Bus bearing No.AP-26-Z-0132 of Nellore-I Deport being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit Sajid Hussain from the front side, due to which he fell down, received injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident and was working as a Lorry driver cum Lorry mechanic at Karimnagar, used to earn Rs.15,000/- and contributed his entire earnings to the family. On the complaint, P.S. Afzalgunj has registered a case in Crime No.474 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle – respondent No.6 herein and prayed to award compensation jointly and severally. 4. Driver of the crime vehicle – respondent No.6 herein filed counter and contended that accident occurred due to running of the deceased across the bus station and was in a drunken condition and according to the report of A.Krishna Murthy, Controller, when the bus came into C.B.S. there was heavy rain. The bus came to platform No.70 in M.G.B.S. and the deceased came there, while the bus was moving slowly, he fell down in front of the bus as his chappal have slipped and denied the age, avocation of the deceased, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The bus came to platform No.70 in M.G.B.S. and the deceased came there, while the bus was moving slowly, he fell down in front of the bus as his chappal have slipped and denied the age, avocation of the deceased, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Appellant – respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased as there was heavy rain in the bus station and he was in a drunken condition, without observing the water on the ground he himself slipped from the platform, fell down on the ground, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The compensation claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 5–petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by R.1 as alleged by petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so, at what rate and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. Respondent No.1-Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1, examined PW.2-Rukshana Begum and also examined PW.3-Shaik Zakir Hussain, got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.6 herein is examined as RW.1. 8. During pendency of the O.P. respondent No.5-petitioner No.5, who is the mother of the deceased died. 9. The Tribunal after going through the evidence led by the parties and perusing the documents thereon has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.17,64,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and that the respondent No.1 (respondent No.6 herein) and respondent No.2 (appellant herein) were jointly and severally directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of judgment (22.12.2021). 10. In the cause title of the Appeal, it is mentioned that respondent No.6 is not a necessary party to the Appeal. 11.1. 10. In the cause title of the Appeal, it is mentioned that respondent No.6 is not a necessary party to the Appeal. 11.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the death of the deceased is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and failed to see that the deceased was trying to board the bus while it was in motion, slipped and fell down, there is no negligence on the part of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal erred in considering Exs.A1 and A2 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and also failed to consider the evidence of RW.1 in proper perspective. The Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the bus was acquitted by II Addl JFMC, Hyderabad in CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021 and the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability at 50% : 50%. The Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month with increase of 25% towards future prospects and also erred in awarding compensation of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, 16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and in any event the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and out of all proportions, prayed to allow the Appeal. 11.2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case by considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 and also rightly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by considering the evidence of PW.3 and rightly applied all the multipliers, placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of i) Janabai WD/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others Vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited , [ (2022) 10 SCC 512 ] , ii) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chamundeswari and Others , [ (2021) 18 SCC 596 ] , iii) Krishnan Asari and another Vs. Adaikalam and others , [AIR 1966 Madras 425] and iv) Bontu Venkata Rao and another Vs. Kalla Venkataramana and another , [ 2003 (3) ALD 314 ] , no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. Heard learned counsel, perused the record. 13. Adaikalam and others , [AIR 1966 Madras 425] and iv) Bontu Venkata Rao and another Vs. Kalla Venkataramana and another , [ 2003 (3) ALD 314 ] , no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. Heard learned counsel, perused the record. 13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned order in MVOP No.228 of 2018, dated 22.12.2021 suffers from any illegality or perversity, if so, does it requires interference of this Court? 14. It is not the case of the appellant-respondent No.2 before the Tribunal that the deceased was trying to board the bus while it is in motion, slipped and fell down. Appellant has taken the said ground in the Appeal for the first time. 15. PW1 has lodged a complaint before P.S. Afzulgunj, on 15.09.2016 stating that she along with her husband-Sajid Hussain (deceased), her sister Ruksana and her two children started from Karimnagar to Hyderabad to visit her elder sister-Rehana Begum and reached MGBS at 2330 hours, they all deported at platform No.70. Immediately after getting down from the bus, her husband went to toilet and when he was returning back, one RTC bus driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit her husband from the front side due to which her husband fell down and the public there started shouting, thereafter the bus driver stopped. Her husband has received bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. Basing on the said complaint, P.S. Afzalgunj has registered Ex.A1 on the same day against respondent No.6 herein-respondent No.1 before the Tribunal for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 16. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with the complaint given by her. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her husband ran to catch the bus to occupy the seat, slipped down from the platform, sustained injuries and died and accident has not occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 17. PW.2 is an eye-witness to the incident and she supported the case of PW.1 in all aspects and the deceased is the husband of her younger sister. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she has not seen the accident of her brother-in-law and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. 18. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she has not seen the accident of her brother-in-law and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. 18. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by Afzalgunj P.S. wherein the driver of the crime vehicle is shown as accused and the section of law is 304-A of IPC. PW.1 and PW.2 are shown as LW.1 and LW.2 in the charge sheet as eye-witnesses. 19. The driver of the crime vehicle deposed as RW.1 and he stated that the deceased hurriedly came to the bus and tried to board the same without stopping, as there was heavy rain on that day, he slipped, fell down on the road, sustained injuries and died, his bus did not hit or dashed the deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted that accident occurred at MGBS, Hyderabad and he was driving the bus, he is shown as accused in Ex.A1 and charge sheet was filed against him under Ex.A2. 20. RW.1 has also developed his evidence that the deceased tried to board the bus. It is not the case of the driver of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal that the appellant tried to board the bus when it was moving. It is a development in the evidence of the driver. 21. In the grounds of Appeal, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the bus was acquitted by II Addl JFCM, Hyderabad in CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021. It is worth mentioning that the driver of the crime vehicle has filed his chief- affidavit as RW1 on 25.11.2021 i.e., after the alleged acquittal in CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021. There is no explanation from the appellant what made them not to file the said judgment before the Tribunal. Hence, the ground taken by the appellant is rejected. 22. It is worth mentioning that the driver of the crime vehicle has filed his chief- affidavit as RW1 on 25.11.2021 i.e., after the alleged acquittal in CC.No.16 of 2017, dated 12.03.2021. There is no explanation from the appellant what made them not to file the said judgment before the Tribunal. Hence, the ground taken by the appellant is rejected. 22. Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 which is summary in nature (see Janabai’s case): If evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report (see Chamundeswari’s case) : The decision of a Criminal Court cannot be relied on as one binding in a civil action (see Krishnan Asari’s case and Bontu Venkata Rao’s case). 23. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 24. PW.3 is the employer of the deceased who is eking out his livelihood by running the Lorry on hire, he is the owner of Lorry bearing No.AP-36-W-7300 and the deceased was working as a driver since 3 years till his death and was also a Lorry mechanic and that he used to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary. The Tribunal taking into consideration the occupation of the deceased as a Lorry driver and mechanic has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rani and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ 2018 (3) T.A.C. 683 (S.C.)] , which is appropriate and not inclined to interfere with the same. 25. The age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years in the claim petition, the same age is mentioned in Ex.A3-inquest report and Ex.A4-postmortem examination report and the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘15’ as the deceased falls within age group of 36 to 40 years and also added future prospects @ 25% as the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years. Number of dependants of the deceased are 4 to 6 and the personal expenses are deducted by 1/4 th which is also correct. 26. Number of dependants of the deceased are 4 to 6 and the personal expenses are deducted by 1/4 th which is also correct. 26. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to respondent No.1-petitioner No.1, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has lost site to award consortium to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 – petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 towards parental consortium and they are entitled for the same. 27. The computation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Income ( per month) Rs. 10,000/ - 2. Add 25% future prospects ( as per National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) Rs. 12,500/ - (10,000 X 25% ) + 10,000 3. ( 1/ 4 th deductions towards Personal Expenses (as per Smt .Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 7) Rs.9,375/ - 12,500 - ( 12,500 X 1/ 4) 4. Annual Income Rs.1,12,500/ - ( 9,375 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘15’ Rs.16,87,500/ - ( 1,12,500 X 15) 6. Consortium ( 44,000 x 4) Rs.1,76,000/ - 7. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/ - 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/ - Total Rs.18 ,96,500 / - 28. Interest to be awarded @ 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683]. 29. In the result, MACMA.No.178 of 2022 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 22.12.2021, passed in MVOP.No.228 of 2018, stands enhanced. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,Rs.17,64,500/-is enhanced to Rs.18,96,500/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent No.1 to 4 – petitioner Nos.1 to 4 shall pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. d) Respondent No.1–petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.10,43,075/- along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security. e) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.2,84,475/- each with costs and interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw their entire amount without furnishing security. f) Respondent No.4 – petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.2,84,475/- with costs and interest thereon, as she is minor her share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till she attain majority. f) Respondent No.4 – petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.2,84,475/- with costs and interest thereon, as she is minor her share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till she attain majority. Respondent No.1-petitioner No.1, being the mother of Respondent No.4–petitioner No.4, is permitted to withdraw interest part for the welfare of her daughter. g) The appellant herein-respondent No.2 and respondent No.6 herein-respondent No.1 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.