THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2930 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.805 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge), Visakhapatnam whereunder for a claim of compensation, due to the death of the deceased Pitta Venkateswara Rao @ Ramana, on 8.6.2000, who is a cleaner in the van, the mother and the sisters made a claim for Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,63,000/-. The insurance company within whom the vehicle was insured has stated that due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.WB 23/5250, the accident has happened. 2. The insurance company who is the 3rd respondent and the appellant herein filed a counter denying the liability and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence and also the earning capacity of the deceased and the dependency. 3. After considering the evidence on record, the impugned award was passed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the award was passed by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased died in a motor accident and he was stated to be employed as a cleaner in the mini van bearing No.AP 31 V 6771. Evidently, the deceased was unmarried. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of the earnings of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. From the date of accident, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards the personal expenses and this is not proper since the deceased was unmarried person. Half of the extent has to be deducted and consequently a sum of Rs.1,250/- will be fixed as monthly contribution and the annual contribution comes to Rs.18,000/-. The age of the mother is to be taken into consideration as he was unmarried. 6. As can be seen from the cause title of the petition, the mother is said to be aged about 45 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 17 which is not correct and the proper multiplier is only 14 as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The total compensation comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.18,000/- X 14). The petitioner is entitled to a pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/-. Under the circumstances, the award of the lower Tribunal about the extent of compensation is concerned has to be modified. Evidently, the policy covers the risk but it was contended that the licence was fake. The appellant has relied upon the certificate Ex.B.3, but there is no proper proof of the same. In the absence of such evidence, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability against the third parties. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of the lower Tribunal is modified as indicated above and the appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:03.11.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2930 of 2011 Date: 03.11.2011 Gk. [1] 2009 ACJ 1298