HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.231 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.9.2007 in M.V.O.P.No. 669 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. The appellants herein are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No. 669 of 2006. They filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- for the death of their son Thummaluru Veeranjaneyulu. But the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,72,000/- under all heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. The counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre. The Tribunal below fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per year and as the deceased was studying degree course, he requested for enhancement of compensation. Now, the point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Admittedly the deceased is a student studying B.Sc., course. In proof of the same, the claimants filed Ex.A.5 original intermediate marks sheet and Ex.A.6 Original Xth class marks certificate and Ex.A.7 original Computer Certificate. The factum of accident was not disputed. It is an admitted fact that deceased was not an earning member and he met with an accident at the age of 20 years. The Tribunal below arrived the income of the deceased notionally as provided under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as he being the non-earning member, fixed the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Out of the said amount, if 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses, remaining Rs.10,000/- to be annual loss of dependency for the petitioners. The insurance company did not file any cross appeal. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal below deducted 1/3rd towards contribution, though the deceased is unmarried. As per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. But, the same was not applied in this case. Admittedly, the Tribunal below applied the multiplier ‘16’, though as per Sarla Verma and others case (one supra), the multiplier to the age group of 36 years is ‘15’. However, since the insurance company did not file any appeal, the finding of the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of dependency is just and reasonable. The Tribunal also granted another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, which is sustainable. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. With this modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 17TH June, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298