THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.1053 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.08.2002 in O.P.No.334 of 1996 passed by the Chairman- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 08.03.1996 the deceased came to Mudigubba and got into the jeep along with his goods to go to Mukthapuram. In between Sankepalli and Mudigubba on the way, a tractor and trailor loaded with sand came with rash and negligent manner and both the vehicles dashed and there was head on collision. As a result, the persons in the jeep as well as in the tractor fell down and received injuries. The deceased who was in the jeep received serious head injuries on his right side. The deceased was taken to Govt.Head Quarters Hospital for treatment and later he was shifted to Kurnool General Hospital and he succumbed to injuries on 13.3.1996 while undergoing treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to apply the multiplier of ‘18’ instead of ’14.81’ and that as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], a multiplier of ‘16’ is to be applied for calculating the compensation. He further urged that the lower Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1200/- instead of Rs.1500/-, which is very meagre. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company urged that though the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.1,17,000/-, the lower Tribunal liberally granted compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- which is quite unreasonable. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for. It was not disputed about the manner in which the accident occurred. It is also not disputed the liability of compensation payable by the respondents 1 to 3. The question for determination is whether the multiplier 14.81 applied by the lower Tribunal while awarding compensation is just and reasonable. As per the latest decision reported in Sarla Verma (1 supra), a multiplier of ‘16’ has to be applied to the age group of the injured between 30 to 35 years. The present case on hand squarely falls under the ambit of the aforesaid proposition. So while taking into consideration of the same, applying multiplier ‘16’ is quite apt and reasonable. With regard to the income of the deceased, no evidence was let in before the Tribunal. Since there is no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased the Tribunal fixed at Rs.1200/- per month. In the absence of any iota of evidence on that score, I am of the view that the aforesaid compensation granted basing on income of Rs.1200/- is just and reasonable. By applying the multiplier ‘16’ it comes to Rs.1,200 X 12 X 16 =2,30,400. The other findings of the Tribunal holds good. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation. K.S.APPA RAO,J 17th February, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298