HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1006 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award and decree, dated 03.09.1999 passed in M.O.P.No.4 of 1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The deceased – Dada Basha, who is the son of the first appellant, and brother of appellants 2 and 3, aged about 21 years died in a motor vehicle accident on 6.3.1997. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in the claim petition filed by them under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,400/-. 3. Challenge in this appeal by the claimants is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not just and reasonable and deserves to be enhanced. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The respondents 1 and 2 though served with notice, none appeared. 5. According to the claimants, the deceased was a scooter mechanic and was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW.2 is the employer of the deceased and PW.3 is also working along with the deceased and PW.2 testified the said fact before the learned Tribunal. However, there was no documentary evidence in proof of the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month and the contribution to the family after deducting 1/3rd comes to Rs.1000/- per month and the same is reasonable. However, as per judgment in SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the deceased being unmarried, the first appellant, the mother being aged about 45 years on the date of his death the relevant multiplier is 14. The annual contribution of the deceased an amount of Rs.12,000/- has to be capitalized with the multiplier ‘14’, which comes to Rs.12,000/- x 14 = 1,68,000/-. 6. This apart, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-. Since it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal or this Court to arrive at a compensation, which is just and reasonable, even if it is over and above the compensation actually claimed by the appellants in the present case, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% per annum being on higher side, it is reduced to 7.5% per annum in this appeal. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.1,78,000/- minus Rs.1,25,400/- = Rs.52,600/-. Further the Tribunal erroneously held that the appellants 2 and 3, who are the sisters of the deceased being majors are not the dependents on the deceased, and they are not entitled for compensation. They being the unmarried sisters and legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident along with the first appellant, mother of the deceased. Thus, the said finding is set aside in this appeal and it is held that the appellants 1 to 3 are entitled for compensation and the compensation shall be apportioned equally among all the appellants. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 26.11.2009 kvrm [1] 2009(2)L.S. 29 (SC)