JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act, 1988’) assailing the Award passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1550 of 2005 dated 03.12.2007. 2.1. Appellants are the petitioners and sole respondent is the respondent in O.P. 2.2. Notice got issued to the respondent in the appeal is served on 12.01.2009, none appeared. 3.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Anantha Narsamma with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition with costs and interest. 3.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the husband and appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of deceased Anantha Narsamma. 3.3. It is stated in the O.P. that on 07.03.2005, at about 07.00 a.m., while Anantha Narsamma was crossing the road near Risala Bazar, Kanchi Muthyalamma Temple in Secunderabad opposite to Electrical transformer, an RTC bus bearing No.AP10Z5811 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Anantha Narsamma, due to which she fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries, immediately she was shifted to G.N.R Hospital of Alwal, where the Doctors declared that the injured Anantha Narsamma brought dead. On the date of accident, deceased Anantha Narsamma was aged about 33 years and was hale and healthy, doing agriculture, used to sell vegetables and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. 3.4. On the death of deceased Anantha Narsamma, appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost his wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have lost their mother and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 4. Sole respondent has filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place, the age and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the OP. 5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident resulting in death of Smt. Anantha Narsamma occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP10Z5811? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 6. 5. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident resulting in death of Smt. Anantha Narsamma occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP10Z5811? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 6. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 – Y. Yadagiri and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. No evidence is adduced by the respondent and no documents are marked. 7. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 expired after adducing his evidence, memo is filed to that effect before the learned Tribunal, stating that his legal representatives are already on record as appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 8. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellants-petitioners has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-, as there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, adopted the proportion of 2:1 ratio, held that the appellants-petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards conventional expenses. In total, awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent. 9.1. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, committed serious irregularity and illegality and arrived at a perverse finding that the deceased was also held responsibility in causing the accident in proportion of 1:2 ratio. The Tribunal ought to have taken the age of deceased as 33 years instead of taking that the deceased was in the age group of 40-45 years and wrongly adopted the multiplier. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the appellants-petitioners and the interest ought to have been awarded at 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum and prayed to allow the appeal. In support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Karri Nagapadma Sridevi and another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kakinada and others , 2001 (6) ALD 844 (DB). 9.2. Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and perused the record. 11. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant-petitioner? Ltd. Kakinada and others , 2001 (6) ALD 844 (DB). 9.2. Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and perused the record. 11. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant-petitioner? If so. 2. Whether the Award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.1550 of 2005 dated 03.12.2007 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 12. Appellant No1.-petitioner No.1 has lodged a complaint before PS Bollaram, basing on which a case in Crime No.21 of 2005 was registered on 07.03.2005 against the driver of the crime vehicle under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME Report, which shows the cause of death of deceased as died due to multiple injuries “Polytrauma” and Ex.A4 is the charge-sheet filed by the police against the driver of APSRTC bus. 13. The evidence of appellant No.1-petitioner No.1-PW-1 is the replica of the petition, in his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of accident, he was at Ashramam at Risala Bazar and the distance from Ashramam to the place of accident is 25-30 yards and he was on lent (upavasam), he is not an eye witness to the incident and he has lodged a complaint before the police about the manner in which the accident has taken place. He denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 14. PW2-Y. Yadagiri deposed that he went to Kanchi Muthyalamma temple at Secunderabad on 06.03.2005 and stayed there on the night and woke up in the morning at 07.30 a.m., on the next day i.e., 07.03.2005, while he was waiting at the tap to wash his face, one lady was crossing the road from Kanchi Muthyalamma temple, at that time, one R.T.C bus bearing No.AP10Z5811 came in a rash and negligent manner towards Hakeempet side and dashed the lady due to which she fell down on the road and received injuries. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the deceased and her elder son. Accident has taken place between 07.00 a.m., to 07.30 a.m., in the month of March, 2005. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the deceased and her elder son. Accident has taken place between 07.00 a.m., to 07.30 a.m., in the month of March, 2005. At that time, he was brushing his teeth and the distance between the place of accident to where he was standing is 15 yards. Immediately after the accident, the lady was shifted from the spot to the hospital and he did not know where she was taken and to which hospital. He denied the suggestion that he is not an eye witness to the accident. 15. In Karri Nagapadma Sridevi and another, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad observed at paragraph No.6, which reads as under: “The assumption of contributory negligence is casual and baseless. There cannot be any assumption as against the clear and cogent eye-witness account of PW 3 whose testimony was not at all doubted. In fact, contributory negligence has to be proved after the negligence of respondent No. 3 is proved and Respondent No. 3-Driver remained ex parte and there is no rebuttal evidence at all to come to the conclusion of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a matter of proof and not an assumption. In view of the above, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the learned single Judge is set aside and it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the respondent No. 3-Driver.” 16. On perusal of the charge-sheet (Ex.A4), which goes to show that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. There is no material placed by the respondent to show that there is negligence on the part of deceased while crossing the road. The evidence adduced by appellant No.1-PW-1 with that of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 and A4 goes to show that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 17. The evidence adduced by appellant No.1-PW-1 with that of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 and A4 goes to show that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 17. In view of the reasons above, learned Tribunal has arrived at a wrong conclusion that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and wrongly held that the deceased was also negligent while crossing the road and ratio applied is perverse which requires interference of this Court, which is supported with the decision stated supra. 18. Learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 40 years. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report and Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME report which goes to show that deceased is aged about 33 years as on the date of accident and the same age is mentioned in the claim petition. Hence the age of the deceased is taken as 33 years and appropriate multiplier is 16. 19. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Appellants-petitioners are entitled for the same and they are also entitled for future prospects in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. This Court is not interfering with the same as the appellants-petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 20. Calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 21. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683. 22. In the result, MACMA.No.5265 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 03.12.2007, passed in O.P.No.1550 of 2005, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,55,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,14,600/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,55,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,14,600/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) Respondent herein is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount. e) Appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.2,38,200/- each with interest and costs thereon and they are permitted to withdraw their entire amount. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed.