JUDGMENT M.A.C.M.A. No. 3353 of 2005 arises out of O.P.No. 898 of 2003, MAC.M.A. No. 153 of 2006 arises out of O.P.No. 897 of 2003 and M.A.C.MA NO.268 of 2006 arises out of a.p.No.902 of 2003. 2. The learned Tribunal viz. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, at Warangal disposed of all the aforesaid original petitions by its common order, dated 02-07-2005. The father filed O.P.No. 897 of 2003 (MAC.MANo.153 of 2006) and a.p.No.902 of 2003 (M.A.C.M.A. No. 268 of 2006) claiming compensation of RS.6 lakhs on account of death of his two daughters in a motor accident. The husband along with his children filed a.p.No.898 of 2003 (M.A.C.M.A.No. 3353 of 2005) Claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of death of his wife in a motor vehicle accident. 3. As against the common award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/United India Insurance Company filed the aforesaid three appeals questioning the quantum of compensation on the ground that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal for computing the compensation is contrary to law, and as such, the compensation awarded in respect of the death of daughters of the claimant deserves to be reduced. However, the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of the wife of the first claimant in O.P.No.898 of 2005 (C.M.A.No.3353 of 2003) is also questioned by the appellants/ Insurance Company. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents claimants in all the three appeals. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Insurance Company would contend that the Insurance Company has no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.2,35,000/- as against the claim of RS.5 lakhs in respect of the death of the wife of the respondent/ claimant in O.P.No.898 of 2003 (M.A.C.M.A. No. 3353 of 2005). However, it seriously questioned the approach of the Tribunal in selecting the multiplier in respect of the deceased in M.A.C.M.A.No.153 of 2006 (O.P.No.897 of 2003) and M.A.C.M.A. No. 268 of 2006 (O.P. No.902 of 2003) who are the unmarried daughters of the respondent/claimant. 6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the findings of the Tribunal as regards the age and income of the deceased needs no interference. 7. 6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the findings of the Tribunal as regards the age and income of the deceased needs no interference. 7. In M.A.C.M.A.No.153 of 2006 (O.P. No. 897 of 2003) the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the respondent/ claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by attending tuitions on the ground, that absolutely there is no evidence on record either oral or documentary and therefore; fixed her annual income at Rs.15,000/- as per the Second Schedule. Further, the Tribunal in M.A.C.M.A.No.268 of 2006 (O.P.No.902 of 2003) considered the age of the deceased as 17 years, which was mentioned in EX.A-8 post-mortem report. EX.A-13 salary certificate was filed showing the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month which she was earning by working as Aya in a private hospital of P.W.4 (Dr. V. Padmavathi). P.WA, the doctor who issued the said certificate deposed about the income of the deceased as mentioned in EX.A-13. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/- is based on evidence. However, as regards O.P.No.897 of 2003 (C.M.A.No.153 of 2006), the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 15 years at the time of her death basing on the post-mortem report. Though it was contended by the respondent/claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by attending tuitions, the Tribunal disbelieved the version of the respondent on the ground that there is no oral or documentary evidence on record on the aspect of the income of the deceased and accordingly considered the income at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule. 8. Pertinent question raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company is that in both the cases relating to the unmarried daughters of the respondent/claimant who died in a motor accident, the Tribunal wrongly took the age of the deceased at the time of their death for the purpose of selecting multiplier instead of the age of the respondent who is their father. The law on this aspect is very much settled that the Tribunal should take the age of the respondent who is the father of the deceased for the purpose of considering the multiplier. Even according to the respondent/ claimant, he is aged about 50 years at the time of trial in the claim petition. The law on this aspect is very much settled that the Tribunal should take the age of the respondent who is the father of the deceased for the purpose of considering the multiplier. Even according to the respondent/ claimant, he is aged about 50 years at the time of trial in the claim petition. Therefore, the relevant multiplier in the present cases as per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act is 13. 9. M.A.C.M.A.No.153 of 2006 (O.P. No. 897 of 2003): In this appeal, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards her personal living expenses, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.10,000/-. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- has to be multiplied with the multiplier 13 which comes to Rs.10,000/- x 13 = Rs.1,30,000/-. The amounts i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal need not be interfered with as they are in accordance with law. I see no force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the loss of estate mentioned in Second Schedule shall be taken since the annual income and multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule are considered for the purpose of computing compensation. Merely because the Tribunal had taken into account the annual income of non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule and also the multiplier mentioned therein, there is no restriction under law to award the amount, which is only mentioned in the second schedule towards loss of estate. Therefore, the said aspect is not interfered with in this appeal. In all, respondent/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1, 47,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization as directed by the Tribunal. 10. Similarly in M.A.C.M.A. No. 268 of 2006 (O.P.No.902 of 2003) the annual income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards her personal living expenses, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.16,000/- per annum and this amount has to be capitalized with multiplier 13 which comes to Rs.16,000/- x 13 = Rs.2,08,000/-. This apart, the respondent/ claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate which are rightly awarded by the Tribunal. This apart, the respondent/ claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate which are rightly awarded by the Tribunal. In all the respondent/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization as directed by the Tribunal. 11. M.A.C.M.A.No.3353 of 2005 (O.P. No. 898 of 2003): As already stated, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. With the above modifications in the quantum of compensation in M.A.C.M.A No.153 of 2006 (O.P.No.897 of 2003) and in M.A.C.M.A.No.268 of 2006 (O.P.No.902 of 2003), both the appeals are partly allowed. M.A.C.M.A. No. 3353 of 2005 (O.P.No.898 of 2003) is dismissed without costs.