Judgment :- Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No.265 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimants 1 to 3 have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Facts in brief are: The appellants 1 to 3 herein are the claimants 1 to 3 in O.P.No.265 of 1998. They are widow and children of Dudekula Babu. On 02.12.1997 at about 12.15 P.M., Dudekula Babu, his brother-in-law PW.2 Chand Basha and one Rajagopal were going on a motorcycle and on reaching Melapuram Praja Parishad Crossing, Hindupur, a lorry bearing No. APA 5805 came in high speed and dashed the motorcycle from behind. As a result, Dudekula Babu received head injury. He was admitted in Hindupur Government Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries at about 1.55 P.M. on that day. According to the appellants/claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. They filed O.P.No.265 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for the death of Dudekula Babu as compensation. They sought the compensation from the owner and the insurer of the crime vehicle. The insurer resisted the claim of the appellants/claimants by filing counter. The insurer took the plea that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and that the compensation claimed by the appellants/claimants is excessive. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the accident occurred on 2-12-97 due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.APA 5805 by its driver, dashed against the motor cycle and caused the death of the deceased? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief?” On behalf of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, one document was marked as Ex.B1. 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief?” On behalf of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, one document was marked as Ex.B1. The learned Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the lorry bearing No.APA 5805 and their negligence has been fixed at the rate of 30 : 70 and thereby proceeded to grant compensation of Rs.99,524/-to the claimants, by order, dated 28.11.2001. Dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation, the claimants 1 to 3 have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 that the accident was not due to triple riding of the motorcycle and therefore, the rider of the motorcycle cannot be said to have contributed negligence to the accident. It is also contended by him that mere triple riding on a motorcycle cannot be a ground to infer that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. In a way his contention is unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of the triple riding on a motorcycle, the rider of the motorcycle cannot be held responsible. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in KattabommanTransport Corporation Ltd. v. Vellai Duraichi & Ors. (2004 ACJ 1510)Much emphasis has been laid on para.8 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: “8. In the light of the said conclusion, we have carefully verified the factual details and the ultimate decision arrived at in the first Division Bench decision, namely Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpon. Ltd. v. Abdul Salam, 2003 (1) MLJ 489 . (2004 ACJ 1510)Much emphasis has been laid on para.8 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: “8. In the light of the said conclusion, we have carefully verified the factual details and the ultimate decision arrived at in the first Division Bench decision, namely Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpon. Ltd. v. Abdul Salam, 2003 (1) MLJ 489 . As observed earlier, except stating that 3 persons travelled in a motor vehicle, which is prohibited, no specific finding was given to the effect that travelling of three persons on a motorcycle was responsible for the accident; hence we are of the view that the conclusion in Abdul Salam’s case (supra), is to be confined to that case. In other words, merely because there is violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules, or the policy conditions, it is not automatic that in every case the principle of contributory negligence is to be applied mechanically. As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.Anandavalliamma v. Aravind Eye Hospital, 2004 ACJ 140 (Madras), unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons on a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clearly, if the appellant Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person on the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/insurance company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver, who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons on the motor cycle. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver, who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons on the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant.” It is further contended by the learned counsel that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal making the rider of the motorcycle also responsible for the occurrence of the accident is not based on the evidence and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer submits that the deceased and two others were travelling on a motorcycle and it was contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in making the rider of the motorcycle also responsible for occurrence of the accident. 6. The issues that call for adjudication in this appeal are: “1) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of Dudekula Babu for occurrence of the accident on 02.12.1997? 2) Whether the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 made out any valid ground for enhancement of the compensation?” 7. Issue No.1: PW.2 is one of the injured witness to the accident. He testifies that on the date of the accident, he along with the deceased Dudekula Babu and one Rajagopal was proceeding on a motorcycle and that on reaching Chowdeswari Colony Gram Panchayat, Hindupur, a lorry came from behind and dashed the motorcycle and as a result, he and other two persons sustained injuries. It is also stated by him that the deceased Dudekula Babu was shifted to Hindupur Government Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, Dudekula Babu succumbed to his injuries. Though a suggestion was put to him that the accident occurred due to triple riding on the motorcycle, the same has been denied by him. Except putting a suggestion to PW.2, no evidence has been adduced by the insurer to contradict the version of the incident spoken by PW.2. The learned Tribunal attributed negligence to the rider of the motorcycle, on the sole ground of triple riding on the motorcycle. Except putting a suggestion to PW.2, no evidence has been adduced by the insurer to contradict the version of the incident spoken by PW.2. The learned Tribunal attributed negligence to the rider of the motorcycle, on the sole ground of triple riding on the motorcycle. There is no evidence adduced by the insurer that the accident occurred because of the triple riding of the motorcycle. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be assumed or presumed that the accident resulted because of the triple riding of the motorcycle. The evidence of PW.2 is crystal clear that the lorry came in high speed and dashed the motorcycle and as a result, he and other two persons travelling on the motorcycle fell on road and sustained injuries. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle is not based on any evidence. Hence, I find that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.APA 5805. 8. Issue No.2: The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-p.m. After deducting 1/3rd of it, Rs.800/-p.m. has been taken as contribution to the family, and thereby arrived at Rs.1,42,176/-by taking 14.81 multiplier. I do not see any reason to interfere with either the multiplier or multiplicand arrived by the learned Tribunal in arriving the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SarlaVerma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121), the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate; Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant i.e. widow is entitled for Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. In all, the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.1,42,176/-+ Rs.20,000/-= Rs.1,62,176/-. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.99,524/-to Rs.1,62,176/-. The enhanced compensation amount i.e. Rs.62,652/-shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 as shown below: 1) 1st appellant/1st claimant/widow Rs.22,652/- 2) 2nd appellant/2nd claimant/daughter Rs.20,000/- 3) 3rd appellant/3rd claimant/son Rs.20,000/-. No order as to costs.