THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2321 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants, who are the petitioners in O.P.795/97 against the award, dated 19.04.2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: The first petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 and 3 are sisters of deceased Ramasivaiah, who was working as a tailor and earning Rs.5,250/- per month. On 13.04.1996 while the deceased was coming in a jeep of second respondent from Pendlimarri and when it reached Dibbaiah choultry, the first respondent came in another zeep in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the jeep on account of which, the deceased died. The deceased was said to be aged about 26 years and the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- later amended to Rs.4,50,000/- . The respondents filed counter denying the averments of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and contributory negligence of both vehicles i.e. jeep bearing number AP.04.B.828 and jeep bearing number APD.5433 by its drivers causing the death of the deceased Beeram Ramasivaiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- holding that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.12,000/- per annum by the date of accident and if 1/3rd is deducted from out of that amount towards personal expenses, the remaining comes to Rs.8,000/- per annum and in case, multiplier 18 is applied on the basis of the age of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- and accordingly, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, a total of Rs.1,66,000/- was awarded to the petitioners. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month. At least, it ought to have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, as P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- a day. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal. 8. As contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the tribunal has erred in applying multiplier ‘18’ as the deceased was unmarried, in case of unmarried persons, the age of mother has to be taken into consideration. As the deceased was unmarried, and the age of his mother was 56 years, ‘8’ would be the appropriate multiplier. Even if the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court i n SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] has to be followed, multiplier ‘9’ can be applied. 9. Coming to the income of the deceased, as there is no consistency in the petitioners case as to what was the income of the deceased, in the petition it is stated as more than Rs.5,000/- and in the chief-examination of P.W.1, it is stated as Rs.200/- per day and in cross-examination Rs.100/- per day. Considering all these circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was said to be a tailor in village, he may not be having regular work and hence, I am inclined to put his income at Rs.2000/- a month, instead of Rs.1000/- as taken by the Court below. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.24,000/-, out of that 1/3rd of Rs.8,000/- is deducted, Rs.16,000/- would come as contribution to the family. If multiplier ‘9’ is applied, again the same amount of Rs.1,44,000/- comes towards loss of dependency. The amounts awarded under other heads cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, considering all these circumstances, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.25,000/- as approximate income and age are taken into consideration. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,91,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety one thousand only). The interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 21st June 2010, Rns [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121