THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 5346 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1641 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the award in O.P No.752 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- District Judge, Nellore, dated 09.02.2007, and therefore they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. M.A.C.M.A.No.5346 of 2008 is filed by the appellant-respondent. M.A.C.M.A.No.1641 of 2009 is filed by the appellants-claimants. For brevity and better understanding, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased M.V.B.Sravan Kumar, aged 21 years. They filed O.P.No.752 of 2004 claiming a compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- on the death of the deceased in a motor accident. The Tribunal below while assessing the evidence on record granted compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- under all heads. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable? It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.5346 of 2008 (respondent) that the Tribunal granted compensation at higher rate holding that the age of the deceased mother is 45 years and applied multiplier ‘15’ instead of ‘14’ and compensation granted needs to be reduced. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners in order to claim the compensation examined themselves as PWs.1 & 2 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.19. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. The factum of accident was not disputed. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 21 years on the date of accident and he was studying final year Physiotherapy in VIMS College, Vijayawada and it is also an admitted fact that the deceased is the only son to his parents. It is also evident that besides the deceased, the petitioners had one daughter. The parents had no male issues pursuant to the death of their only son. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish the earnings of the deceased as on the date of the accident. A cursory reading of Exs.A.6 to A.17, the deceased was studying Physiotherapy and he almost completed the said course with good marks as seen from Exs.A.10 to A.16 in particular. Therefore, fixing the income of Rs.4,000/- per month, in my view is very meagre and in that view of the matter fixing the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- is just and reasonable. As seen from Ex.A.17 attested copy of driving licence and A.19 the family member certificate dated 13.10.2004 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vinjamur, the age of the mother of the deceased is noted as ‘40’. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier ‘15’ in the present case on hand. In the above circumstances, the earning capacity of the deceased is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month. As deceased was unmarried, the contribution was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the annual contribution comes to Rs.36,000/-. The age of the mother as per the certificate Ex.A.19 is 40 years. Accordingly, the total dependency comes to Rs.36,000/- X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-. Further the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation amount of Rs.5,57,000/- but interest is reduced to 6% per annum by applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma’s case. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. No costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J 29th April, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298