Judgment : This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.07.2008 in O.P.No.525 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge), Anantapur, wherein the said claim application filed by respondents 1 to 3 here in was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.8,53,088/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.9 lakhs for the death of the deceased M.Krishnama Naidu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.02.2004. The 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the mother and 3rd claimant is the father of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased along with others was returning from Bangalore to Anantapur in a Toyota Qualis car bearing No.AP 02 K 6468 and that near Pulagurlapalli, a lorry bearing No.MH 31 W 7981 coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the Toyota Qualis car, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment at Government Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur. A case in Cr.No.17 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the lorry by Gorantla Police. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 37 years and was working as Assistant Section Officer in the Department of Home at Secretariat and was drawing salary of Rs.7,158/- per month. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs.8,53,088/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously challenged. 8. The Tribunal further awarded a compensation of Rs.8,53,088/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously challenged. 8. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 ACJ 1299), the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, who was aged 37 years, is ‘15’ and the Tribunal has applied higher multiplier ‘16’. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, would submit that the claimants would be entitled for a higher compensation in case the future prospects of the deceased are also taken into consideration. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation so far. In the present appeal filed by the insurer, the claimants cannot seek to have any relief in their favour. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 37 years by the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier as per the above decision is ‘15’. Applying the same to the contribution of the deceased to the family, which was fixed at Rs.4,339/- per by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,81,020/-. The claimants are also held entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,01,020 with interest at 6% per annum. This order does not, however, precluded the claimants from filing a separate appeal for enhancement, if the same is permissible under law. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.