JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘M.V. Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in OP.No.919 of2010, dated 08.06.2011. 2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondents in OP No.919 of 2010. 3. During pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.2 died. Appellant’s counsel submits that there are no other legal heirs of respondent No.2 as the legal heirs are already on record i.e. appellant Nos.1 to 3-petitioners. 4. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of deceased Beligini Shankaraiah. 5. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3- petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the deceased Beligini Shankaraiah. 6. On 19.06.2010, Shankaraiah was on his motor-cycle bearing No.AP-36AA-3580 and he reached Ghanpur bus stand at 8.00 p.m., RTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-5908 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of Shankaraiah and he died on the spot. On the complaint, Police has registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2010 against the driver of the bus. Respondent No.2 is the mother of the deceased and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 7. Respondent No.1 filed counter and contended that the deceased drove his motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bumper of the bus and he fell down and died, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the claim is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the OP. 8. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that her son died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and compensation be awarded to the appellants-petitioners and to her. 9. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 19.06.2010 at 8.00 p.m., at Ghanpur bus stand the driver of RTC bus AP-11Z-5908 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in death of deceased Shankaraiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom? 3. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 19.06.2010 at 8.00 p.m., at Ghanpur bus stand the driver of RTC bus AP-11Z-5908 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in death of deceased Shankaraiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom? 3. To what relief? 10. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2- R.Madhusudhan Reddy, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Respondent No.1 got examined RW.1 and no documents are marked on their behalf. 11. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 awarded compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- and as there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased equally to the negligence of RW.1, held that the appellants-petitioners are entitled for 50% of the amount which is Rs.2,51,000/- and awarded interest @ 6% per annum directing respondent No.1 to pay the same. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence brought on record is sufficient to establish that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus and the Tribunal failed to compute the income of the deceased in a proper manner and has taken the income as Rs.4,000/- per month, awarded less amount. T here is sufficient material on record to prove that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus and the Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased is equally negligent and arrived at contributory negligence at 50% which is perverse. Counsel to substantiate his contention relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Smt. Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 (2) Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors. , 2 2024 INSC 706 (3) Kanishk Sinha and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and another , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259 . 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal has rightly held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident and rightly held that the appellants- petitioners are entitled for 50% of the compensation amount and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 14. Appellant’s counsel has filed Calculation Memo. 15. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 16. 14. Appellant’s counsel has filed Calculation Memo. 15. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 16. Now the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just compensation, if so? (2) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? Point Nos. 1 and 2 17. Appellant’s counsel has challenged the quantum awarded by the Tribunal and also challenged the contributory negligence of the deceased. 18. In Smt.Anjali1, the Supreme Court held that “an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants.” 19.1. PW.2 is an eye-witness to the incident. He deposed that the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at Ghanpur bus stand and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased who fell down, received injuries and died. 19.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he got down the bus at Ghanpur bus stand and was going to his Village in an Auto, at the time of accident RTC bus was coming through OUT gate and there is a road divider in front of the bus stand, Ghanpur, there is a speed breaker within the bus stand. 20.1. RW.1 is the driver of the crime vehicle. He deposed that he was on duty on 19.06.2010, at Ghanpur bus station some passengers got down and some passengers were entering into the bus, when the bus was coming outside through the OUT gate a motor-cyclist came with high speed, lost control, dashed the road divider and received head injuries. 20.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not give complaint to the police and there was a conductor in the bus. 21. The learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the bus driver and of the deceased as he was coming with high speed when the bus was coming out through OUT gate without any indication and thereby the deceased could not have control the motor-cycle and dashed the bus and therefore held that deceased and RW.1 were at fault accordingly. 22. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of charge sheet which goes to show that it is RW.1 who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 23.1. 22. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of charge sheet which goes to show that it is RW.1 who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 23.1. In Sushma, the Supreme Court relied on Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri Vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak , (2002) 6 SCC 455 and while referring to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley Vs. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 held that : “… where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty.” 23.2. The Supreme Court also referred to the decision in Swadling Vs. Cooper , 1931 AC 1 held that : “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence”. 23.3. The Supreme Court further held that the person in control of the offending truck insured by the insurer was fully responsible for the negligence leading to the accident. 24. Ex.A5-xerox copy of charge sheet is staring against respondent No.1 and the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that it is the driver of the crime vehicle (RW.1) has caused the accident and it cannot be said that deceased is also at fault and the findings of the learned Tribunal is perverse which requires interference of this Court. 25. In so far as the quantum is concerned the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.32,000/- towards annual income. As the deceased was aged about 40 years and applied multiplier ‘15’, arrived at Rs.4,80,000/- and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and the total compensation arrived at Rs.5,02,000/-, as contributory negligence deducted 50% and arrived at a compensation of Rs.2,51,000/-. 26.1. The evidence of PW.1 (appellant No.1) is that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month towards salary (Ex.A8) and was also performing ceremonies as Poojari and was earning Rs.2,500/-, a part from that the deceased was also earning Rs.2,500/- per month from the agricultural land. 26.1. The evidence of PW.1 (appellant No.1) is that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month towards salary (Ex.A8) and was also performing ceremonies as Poojari and was earning Rs.2,500/-, a part from that the deceased was also earning Rs.2,500/- per month from the agricultural land. As per Ex.A8 the salary of the deceased is Rs.2,500/- per month. This Court is of the view that the deceased might have been earning atleast Rs.1,500/- per month by performing poojas and a part from that he was holding land admeasuring Acs.02.08 guntas and he might be earning Rs.2,000/- on agriculture. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2,500/- towards salary, Rs.1500/-in performing poojas, Rs.2,000/- on agriculture). 26.2. Age of the deceased is shown as 40 years in Ex.A2-C.C. of Inquest report, Ex.A3-C.C. of Post-mortem report and Ex.A5-xerox copy of charge sheet and he falls within the age group of 36 to 40 years and appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. 27. In Kanishk Sinha3, the Supreme Court held that “the judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively”. 28. Appellants-petitioners are entitled for future prospects of the deceased along with spouse and parental consortium with loss of estate, funeral expenses as per judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 29. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S. No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Salary Rs. 6,000/- 2. Add 30% future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi 4 ) Rs.7,800/- 6,000/- + 1,800/- (6,000/- x 30% = 1,800/- 3. Deduct 1/4 th towards personal expenses (as per Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) Rs.5,850/- (7,800/- - 1,950/- (1/4 th of 7,800 = 1,950) 4. Annul income Rs.70,200/- (5,850 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘15’ Rs.10,53,000/- (70,200/- x 15) 6. Spouse and Parental Consortium (Rs.48,400/- each x 3) Rs.1,45,200/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- 9. Transportation Charges Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.12,44,500/- 30. 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 Hence, points are answered accordingly. 31. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- 9. Transportation Charges Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.12,44,500/- 30. 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 Hence, points are answered accordingly. 31. In the result, MACMA.No.410 of 2014 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 08.06.2011, passed in OP No.919 of 2010, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,51,000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,44,500/- together with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The Appellants – petitioners shall pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. d) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount 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. e) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.8,71,150/- along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,86,675/- each with costs and interest thereon, as they are minors and their share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.