THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3273 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.05.2005 in O.P.No.641 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. A claim for compensation was made for Rs.16,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Raziuddin in a motor accident. According to the claim of the petitioners on 23.02.2003 when the deceased was traveling in the auto, due to rash and negligent driving of the auto, it turned turtle and the deceased received injuries and died. The deceased was said to be aged about 35 years and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed written statement putting the petitioners to strict proof of averments in the petition and denied the nature of accident, earnings of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.5,93,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and also the cause of death of the deceased are concerned, there is no dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- without any basis and consequently the application of the II-schedule for multiplier is also not correct as it is a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Evidently, there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. But the deceased was said to be earning by doing some business and also selling vegetables. The lower Tribunal has, therefore, fixed his income at Rs.4,500/- and the contribution to the family at Rs.3,000/-. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the appellant. However, there is also no proof about the earnings of all days. The income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month and applying the guidelines in the judgment reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], since the dependants are more, 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal expenses and the contribution, therefore, comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the multiplier that should have been applied is ‘15’ instead of ‘16’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra). However, if the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred supra are to be applied, the future loss of earning capacity is also to be taken into consideration and the consequences of application of multiplier ‘16’ by the lower Tribunal cannot be said to be bad. Therefore, the quantum of compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal cannot be faulted and it appears to be just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3273 of 2011 DATE: 02-12-2011 MR [1] (2009) 7 SCC 372 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992