THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1711 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 12.08.2004 in O.P.No.481 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar questioning the lesser quantum of compensation. The application was filed for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased B.Jagadeeshwar Reddy, who was said to be working as a Civil Engineer and earning Rs.4,200/- per month, in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ABT-46. The 1st respondent, who was the driver of the vehicle, remained exparte. The 2nd respondent, who was the owner of the vehicle filed counter contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, who had valid and subsisting driving license, and denied the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed a counter pleading that the deceased was not earning so much and the incident was not due to the fault of the driver of the vehicle but due to the fault of the deceased only and it is not liable to pay the compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and applied the multiplier ‘11’ and granted compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was working as a Civil Engineer, earning Rs.4,200/- per month and it is proved by the certificate Ex.A-4 and the lower Tribunal has taken less salary of the deceased and fixed at Rs.3,000/-, which is not correct. As can be seen from the order of the lower Tribunal, the certificate Ex.A-4 is not proved by examining the persons and also the Court has taken only the fact of filing of the provisions certificate and evidently, there is no material since how long the deceased was employed with the company. Therefore, taking into consideration above facts and also taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was not married and keeping in view the salary, which was claimed by the petitioners at Rs.4,200/- and taking the nature of job as a temporary one, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. I do not think that the income was fixed by the lower Tribunal is less, particularly so the petitioners are only the parents, who are dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.18,000/- as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The multiplier ‘11’ applied by the lower Tribunal appears to be not correct and keeping in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the right multiplier will be ‘13’ and after applying the said multiplier, Rs.2,34,000/- will be the amount of dependency. The lower Tribunal has also granted a lesser amount towards loss of estate, and keeping in view of the above judgment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted as loss of estate and the lower Tribunal has granted funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/-, which is also granted. For the total compensation, the petitioners will be entitled, is Rs.2,46,000/-, which is rounded off to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only). With the above modification, the order of the lower Tribunal is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 24-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1711 of 2011 DATE: 24-08-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121