Judgment :- 1. The State Transport Corporation disputes the liability as well as the quantum of compensation. 2. First, we shall see the negligence aspect. The claimant's husband on 03.07.2003 travelled in the Corporation bus as a Conductor. He was sitting near the driver's (R.W.1) seat. Near the Serkadu Junction Road, the accident took place involving the Corporation bus and a lorry. 3.The Tribunal appreciating the evidence of the eye-witness P.W.2, who travelled in the bus as well as R.W.1 fixed the negligence on R.W.1 and quantified the compensation at Rs.7,85,000/-. 4. The evidence of P.W.1 is that at the time of the accident, the bus driver was trying to overtake a lorry, however, R.W,1 would say that he was carefully driving the bus, at about that time, the lorry came from the rear side of the bus and attempted to overtake, he gave the signal, but before he took the bus, the lorry came driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. But a reading of the evidence of R.W.1 shows that he had tried to have an edge over the lorry driver and his rashness was exhibited in his attempt to overtake the lorry. Further, if R.W.1 was not at fault he would have made a complaint at the nearest police station as against the lorry driver or atleast submitted a report to his Corporation that he is not at all at fault. But, he did not do so. Now, considering the above aspect, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal that R.W.1 was responsible for the accident. 5. Now, we come to the quantum aspect. The deceased was a Conductor in the Transport Corporation. Then he was 35 years old. As per Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate, his last monthly salary was Rs.5,679/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards his pleasure and other expenses and took Rs.4,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier 16' and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.7,68,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that this method of calculation by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. He had invited our attention to Smt.SARALA VERMA and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (3) MLJ, 997). 7. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that this method of calculation by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. He had invited our attention to Smt.SARALA VERMA and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (3) MLJ, 997). 7. The primary and statutoryduty of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is to award just compensation to the road accident victims. 8. Now, in this case, admittedly, there are four dependents. In such a case as per SARALA VERMA (supra), the deduction towards pleasure and other expenses should be 1/4 from the salary of the deceased. However, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3. 9. In SARALA VERMA (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in cases where the deceased held a stable job such as in Government service or Public undertakings, Corporation, there is loss of future prospects in the sense of pay revision, increment etc. So, for such loss, depending on the age of the deceased 30%, 50% of the salary has to be added to his salary. Subsequently, in Santhosh Devi versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (2012 ACJ 1428), the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended this benefit to persons employed in unorganized sector and in private sector also. 10. Now, in this case, as per Ex.P8, the last monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.5,679/-. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARALA VERMA (supra) 50% of that shall be added for loss of future prospects. It comes to Rs.8518.5. From that since four persons were depended on the deceased, 1/4 shall be deducted. Ultimately, the salary for this purpose, comes to Rs.6388.87. Now, calculating this amount adopting the multiplier 16' comes to Rs.12,26,663/-. In all other respects, since the Tribunal had given adequate compensation we do not wish to interfere. 11. We accept the submission of Mr.S.Vadivel, learned counsel for 6th respondent that since the lorry driver was not at fault, the lorry owner and his insurer, namely, the 6th respondent cannot be asked to pay the compensation amount. 12. In the result, the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.7,85,000/-to Rs.12,43,663/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit. 12. In the result, the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.7,85,000/-to Rs.12,43,663/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit. The enhanced portion of the compensation amount shall be shared by the claimants as apportioned by the Tribunal. The excess additional Court fee due on the enhanced amount shall be paid within 10 days. The appellant shall deposit the entire modified compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the adults are permitted to withdraw their share of amount less amount already withdrawn. The minor claimants shall be paid their share on their attaining 18 years of age. The first claimant shall be paid the accrued interest on the minor's deposit every quarter. 13. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.