THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1700 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.489 of 1992. The claimants are the appellants herein. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on account of death of their only son – Appala Raju, aged 20 years. The Tribunal below, after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.63,400/- and considering the decision rendered in some other cases in respect of the same accident held that the third respondent-insurance company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.38,400/- shall be paid jointly and severally by respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the third respondent-insurance company. The Tribunal below recorded a categorical finding that the contents of the F.I.R. discloses that the lorry was engaged for carrying passengers to Borra junction from Vizianagaram and rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 who stated that he and the deceased boarded the lorry at Borra Junction to go to Vizag along with their goods, since it is contradictory to the contents of the F.I.R. The Tribunal below further rightly held that since altogether about 70 passengers were travelling in the lorry, there were no goods at all. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard has to be upheld. There is no specific plea by the appellants/claimants indicating what were the goods with which the deceased boarded the lorry and even the insurance company did not adduce any evidence to prove that the deceased was the passenger with goods. The material available on record clearly indicates that the deceased was not travelling with goods in the said lorry and more particularly in view of the fact that he did not engage the lorry to carry his goods. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on this point requires no interference. Further, the Tribunal had given a finding basing on its earlier orders passed in respect of the claimants relating to the same accident and fixed the liability on the insurance company only to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the said finding need not be disturbed in this appeal. The next contention urged before the Tribunal below is the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal below considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month and only considered 1/3rd of his income i.e., Rs.400/- as his contribution to the family. The said approach of the Tribunal is not corrected since the deceased is unmarried, it ought to have deducted 50% of his earnings towards his personal and living expenditure. If so deducted, the amount comes to Rs.600/- and the annual contribution would be 600 X 12 = Rs.7,200/-. The multiplier relevant to the age of the mother of the deceased i.e., second appellant (50 years) is 13. Either according to the Second Schedule of 163-A of the Act or as per the decision in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], to arrive at loss of dependency, the above amount has to be multiplied with 13 and it works out to Rs.93,600/-. Further, the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,03,600/-. The enhanced compensation, therefore, would be Rs.40,200/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 02nd June, 2010 GHN [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487