Judgment C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P.No.43 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. 2. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the death of one Tata Suresh. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.6,98,160/-as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 3. The facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: 4. The deceased was working as Process Server in Judicial Department and was getting a salary of Rs.4,935/-p.m. On 09.05.1999 at about 2.30 PM, the deceased was travelling on a motor cycle on N.H.9 within the limits of Saroornagar police station. At that time, a lorry bearing No. AP 9-T-8502 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle causing grievous injuries to the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are minor sons and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. According to them, because of the sudden demise of the deceased, they have lost their sole bread winner. 5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte while the insurance company which was shown as second respondent filed counter denying the contents in the claim petition. They disputed the relationship between the claimants and the deceased, the manner in which the accident took place, involvement of the deceased in the said accident, age and income as well as the occupation of the deceased. They further contended that the lorry driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. It is further mentioned in the counter that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties since there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. 6. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence, but got marked Ex.B.1 insurance policy on their behalf. 7. 6. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence, but got marked Ex.B.1 insurance policy on their behalf. 7. The 4th petitioner in the O.P. got himself examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident and P.W.3 the Central Nazar in the District Court, Nellore was examined to prove the income of the deceased. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,935/-awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,98,160/-as against a claim of Rs.8.00 lakhs. 9. P.W.1 the father of the deceased was examined to show that the deceased was working as Process Server in the Judicial Department and was earning Rs.4,935/-p.m. According to him, if the deceased lived for a long time, he had opportunity of getting promotions in his service. Though he deposes as to the manner in which the accident took place, he was not an eyewitness to the incident. He admits that after the demise of his son, his daughter-in-law was given a post in District Court on compassionate grounds at Nellore. According to him, he retired as lab technician in DSR Government hospital, Nellore and was getting Rs.3,000/-towards pension. 10. P.W.2 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident. According to him the deceased was driving Hero Honda Motoryclce and another person was sitting as pillion rider on the said vehicle. The lorry which was coming behind the said motorcycle was driven at high speed, crossed an auto in which P.W.2 was going and hit against the two wheeler in which the deceased and another person were going. The lorry was loaded with sand and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased died while being shifted to hospital. Though P.W.2 was cross examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit his testimony. 11. P.W.3 was examined to prove the salary of the deceased at the time of accident. According to him, the deceased was working as Process Server in District Court at Nellore from 15.06.1984 onwards. His last drawn salary was Rs.4,935/-inclusive of D.A. and H.R.A. Ex.A.5 is the last pay certificate of the deceased. 11. P.W.3 was examined to prove the salary of the deceased at the time of accident. According to him, the deceased was working as Process Server in District Court at Nellore from 15.06.1984 onwards. His last drawn salary was Rs.4,935/-inclusive of D.A. and H.R.A. Ex.A.5 is the last pay certificate of the deceased. According to him the deceased would have retired in the year 2026, by which time his salary would be Rs.7,000/-if promoted to higher post. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and the respondent/insurance company. 13. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased who was working as Process Server in District Court, Nellore and earning Rs.4,935/-p.m died in a road accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the driver of the first respondent lorry was responsible for the said accident. The said finding has become final as the same is not challenged either by the insurance company or by the owner of the offending lorry. 14. The learned counsel for the claimants urged that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is less and needs to be enhanced. It is his further contention that the deceased being a government servant and as he was less than 40 years of age at the time of accident, an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the salary of the deceased should be added for calculating future prospects. Further, since the dependents on the deceased are five in number, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that if the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 121) is applied the appropriate multiplier would be 16 but not 17 as applied by the Tribunal but he admits that no appeal has been filed challenging the application of multiplier 17 by the Tribunal. It is further contended that since the first claimant was given the benefit of compassionate appointment in District Court, Nellore and since the 4th claimant was a pensioner, they are not entitled to any amount as compensation under the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that since the first claimant was given the benefit of compassionate appointment in District Court, Nellore and since the 4th claimant was a pensioner, they are not entitled to any amount as compensation under the provisions of the Act. He further contends that in any event, the amount awarded cannot exceed the claim made by the claimants in their petition. 16. Insofar as the argument with regard to the disentitlement of the claimants to the compensation on the ground that the first claimant got compassionate appointment and the fourth claimant is receiving pension, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Geetha Kumari vs. Rubber Board (1994 ACJ 796) wherein it has been held as under: “There are no justifiable reasons to deduct any amount on account of the employment given to the 1st petitioner from the compensation that may be due to the petitioners under the Motor Vehicles Act. This view is supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts.” 17. The Hon’ble apex Court in N. Sivammal Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation (1985 ACJ 75 (SC)) held that deduction of pensionary benefit from the compensation amount in a fatal accident case was not justified. The said finding of the Tribunal on the above aspect needs no interference. 18. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that the application of multiplier will depend on the facts of each case and relied upon the ratio laid down in Jyoti Kaul And Others VS. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another (2000 ACJ 1368). It was a case where one Amar Kishan Kaul, executive engineer in the department of Irrigation and husband of the first appellant therein died in a road accident in the year 1988. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh while applying the multiplier reduced the same from 15 to 10 for the reason that the deceased was likely to be superannuated after eight years. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh while applying the multiplier reduced the same from 15 to 10 for the reason that the deceased was likely to be superannuated after eight years. The Supreme Court, while considering the applicability of the multiplier and by holding that the multiplier system is sound in computing compensation held that it will depend on facts and circumstances of each case like age of deceased, age of dependents, not only existing salary when he died, if any, additional sum payable to the deceased depending upon the nature of job in which he was working, his chances of promotion, the life expectancy etc., and ultimately computed the compensation fixing the multiplier 15. The Supreme Court held that the multiplier is bound to be changed to some degree. 19. The assessment of loss of damages in most of the cases arising under M.V. Act are based on guess work, hypothetical considerations and some sympathy. Taking these aspects into consideration the Supreme Court has been laying down guidelines for application of suitable multiplier while computing the loss of earnings. In view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) the suitable multiplier in the present case would be 16. 20. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to more than the claim made. 21. The learned counsel for the claimants relying upon the ratio laid down in Nagappa VS. Gurudayal Singh And Others ( (2003) 2 SCC 274 ) would contend that the claimants are entitled to more than what has been claimed by them. It was a case of injuries. The Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 158 (6) and 166 (4) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act held that in appropriate cases where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is that it should be ‘just’ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. No other limitation or restriction is placed on the power of Court for awarding just compensation. The only embargo is that it should be ‘just’ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. No other limitation or restriction is placed on the power of Court for awarding just compensation. The Supreme Court in the said case also dealt with Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which is in pari materia with rule 252 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules. The Supreme Court after referring to Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd Vs. Northern India Transport Insurance Company ( (1971) 1 SCC 785 ) held as follows: “Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that the claimant has not precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled to. If the evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the claimant has restricted his claim. 22. In para No.14 of the very same judgment it is further held as under: In case, where there is evidence on record justifying the enhanced compensation for the medical treatment which is required because of the injury caused to a claimant due to the accident, there is no reason why such amendment or enhanced compensation should not be granted. In such cases, there is no question of introducing a new or inconsistent cause of action. Cause of action and evidence remain the same. Only question is – application of law as it stands. 23. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment in Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar And Others (2012 (3) ALD 153 (SC)) It was a case where the appellant therein sustained grievous injuries on various parts of the body in respect of an accident which occurred on 09.05.1996. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and disability certificate issued by the competent authority, awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.25,000/-. On appeal, the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reappreciated the evidence and held that the claimant was entitled to Rs.1,44,000/-towards loss of earning and further awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards treatment and Rs.56,000/-for pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects. In the said case, the High Court awarded Rs.1,44,000/-by applying multiplier ‘16’ and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-as against a claim of Rs.4,20,000/-. In the said case, the High Court awarded Rs.1,44,000/-by applying multiplier ‘16’ and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-as against a claim of Rs.4,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after referring to Sarla Verma case (1 supra) held that the suitable multiplier would be 18 and awarded compensation to the appellant under the head ‘loss of earnings’ at Rs.1,62,000/-. The Supreme Court further awarded a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs for future treatment and also Rs.2.00 lakhs for pain and suffering and trauma due to the accident, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Thus the Court has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,62,000/-. 24. Further, in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited And Another ( (2011) 10 SCC 756 ) the Supreme Court while referring to Nagappa case (7 supra) awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.8,37,640/-with interest at 9% p.a. form the date of filing of the petition though the original claim was only for Rs.5.00 lakhs. It was also a case of an accident which took place on 08.09.2003 wherein the claimant sustained grievous injuries on different parts of the body. 25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company while referring to the judgment in M.S. Grewal and Another vs. Deep Chand Sood And Others (2001 ACJ 1719) contends that quantum of assessment of compensation depends on fact situation of the matter than judicial precedents and that enhancement cannot be ordered as a matter of course. He took me through paragraph 12 of the said judgment which reads as under: As noticed above, a large number of decisions were placed before this Court as regards the quantum of compensation varying between Rs.50,000/- to one lakh in regard to unfortunate deaths of young children. We do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands dependent on the fact-situation of the matter before the court, than judicial precedents. We do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands dependent on the fact-situation of the matter before the court, than judicial precedents. As regards the quantum no decision as such can be taken to be of binding precedent as such, since each case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and thus compensation is also to be assessed on the basis thereof though however the same can act as a guide: Placement in the society, financial status differ from person to person and as such assessment would also differ. The whole issue is to be judged on the basis of the fact-situation of the matter concerned though however, not on mathematical nicety. 26. Relying on Adikanda Sethi (Dead) Through L.Rs And Another Vs. Palani Swami Saran Transports And Another (1997 ACJ 939) the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the claim amount should not in all cases exceed more than the claim amount. It was a case where a young man of 24 years was fatally knocked down by an oil tanker. The applicant claimed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss of estate of the deceased and the support to the appellant as dependant of the deceased. The claim was made under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh which was confirmed under appeal by the High Court enhancing the same by a further sum of Rs.18,000/-. The question involved is with regard to the application of multiplier. The Supreme Court concluded that when the annual income of the deceased is Rs.12,000/-, he would have spent Rs.7,500/-towards family members and 1/3rd for himself. Applying multiplier 18, the apex Court held that the claimant was entitled to get Rs.1,40,000/- towards compensation. Since the claim is limited to Rs.1.00 lakh, the Court held that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.1.00 lakh only. 27. According to him, the analysis of the above judgment would indicate that no decision can be taken to be binding and each case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar circumstances. The quantum of assessment stands dependent on fact situation of the matter than judicial precedents. 28. However, in Mohd. Nizamuddin & Ors. Vs. J. Satyanarayana Reddy & Anr. The quantum of assessment stands dependent on fact situation of the matter than judicial precedents. 28. However, in Mohd. Nizamuddin & Ors. Vs. J. Satyanarayana Reddy & Anr. (III (2012) ACC 203) this Court was dealing with a situation where a claim for Rs.2.00 lakhs was made in respect of death of one Smt. Bismillah Bee. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,02.100/-towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court enhanced the earning of the deceased from Rs.900/-to 3,000/-and also applied multiplier 15 instead of 12.79 applied by the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.4,05,000/-more than the amount claimed by the claimants. In addition thereto, this Hon’ble Court also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. While awarding the said compensation this Hon’ble Court held that in deserving cases, the Court has power to award more than the amount claimed by the claimant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case even in the absence of any petition being filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 29. The deceased in the present case was a Court employee working in District Court, Nellore. He met with the accident. He was hit by a speeding lorry while he was travelling on a two wheeler. He has done no wrong but his dependents are suffering at the cost of the wrong doer. The Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, compensation which is to be determined must be just, reasonable and proper. Claimants are to be compensated for the loss of dependency which should not be a wind fall. As observed by the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2010(1) SCC 254,) the whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong. The only requirement under the Act for determining the compensation is that it must be just, meaning thereby that it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful or unjustifiable. The loss to the aggrieved party will depend upon the data which cannot be ascertained accurately but necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. There will definitely be a margin of error while assessing the quantum of compensation. The loss to the aggrieved party will depend upon the data which cannot be ascertained accurately but necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. There will definitely be a margin of error while assessing the quantum of compensation. 30. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,935/-p.m. Applying the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) and in view of the fact that the deceased was a government employee getting a fixed income, an addition of 50% of actual salary of the deceased should be added to the salary of the deceased, as he was aged only 33 years at the time of accident, for computing the claim towards future prospects, which would be Rs.88,830/-. In view of the fact that there are five dependents on the deceased, after deducting 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.66,622/-. By applying multiplier 16, the loss of dependency would be Rs.10,65,968/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. The amounts awarded under the above counts remain undisturbed. As stated supra, in the absence of any bar in the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court has got power to award higher compensation to victims of accident. The only restriction being the amount awarded should be just and reasonable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the compensation awarded is neither arbitrary, nor unjustifiable but just and reasonable. 31. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is allowed. The compensation of Rs.6,98,160/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,92,968/-while maintaining the interest @ 9% p.a on Rs.6,98,160/-as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned in the same proposition as directed by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the requisite court fee on the enhanced claim of compensation. No order as to costs.