THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2738 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the claimants against the award in O.P.No.577 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda. A claim for Rs.4 lakhs was made consequent on the death of the deceased-A.Sujatha in a motor accident on 27-04-2002. On the date of accident, while she was travelling in an auto along with others and when the auto reached Chandampally stage, a lorry bearing No. AET 7701 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction dashed against the auto, as a result of which, deceased succumbed to death. The first respondent is the owner and second respondent is the Insurance Company. The deceased was said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a tailor and was aged about 25 years and first petitioner is the husband and all of them have lost the support and also the services of the deceased. The first respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioners to strict proof with regard to earning capacity and their dependency. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,03,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 25 years and was doing tailoring work and earning income @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only @ Rs.15,000/-per annum, which is even less than the income of a labourer. Even if the deceased is to go for a labour work, she would have earned more than that amount and apart from her contribution of service to the family, which cannot be valued, they were not taken into consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel ends of justice would meet if the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month and contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.14,000/- per annum. Though the petitioners claimed that the age of the deceased was about “25” at the time of accident and multiplier “18” is to be applied, but, however the second petitioner is said to be 8 years and therefore, the age 25 years claimed by the petitioners, does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the multiplier “17” applied by the lower Tribunal is reasonable and consequently the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.2,85,600/-Apart from it, the first petitioner having lost his wife will be entitled to non-pecuniary damages and also loss of consortium and the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is Rs.3 lakhs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the lower Tribunal is modified and the total compensation, to which the petitioners are entitled, is Rs.3 lakhs. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5 from the date of petition. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 22-11-2011 TSNR