JUDGMENT Aggrieved against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the State Transport Corporation directed this appeal. 2. On 15.5.2006, in a road accident involving the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation, the deceased had lost his life. Totally, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,30,000/-to the dependents of the deceased. 3. Tmt. B.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was a Mason. However, the Tribunal took excessive income, namely, Rs.4500/-per month and it resulted in granting huge compensation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Balaji Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants would contend that the Tribunal, in awarding compensation, ignored the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2009 (6) SCC 121], since it had deducted 1/3rd, when there are six dependents to the deceased and when the deceased was 52 years old, instead of 11', it had taken 10' as the multiplier. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the deceased had robust physique, he was also a member of Tamil Nadu Buildings Construction Workers Association. Actually what was taken as income itself is very less. The learned counsel further contended that although the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation amount, when it is established that in passing the award, the Tribunal had ignored principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, which as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India will bind all the Courts including the Tribunals and such a legal mistake committed by the Tribunal can be corrected by the appellate court. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants cited NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. VS. V.PADMAVATHY AND OTHERS [2011 (3) TLNJ 421 (CIVIL)]. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, the impugned award of the Tribunal and the decisions cited at the Bar. 7. The road accident was on 15.5.2006. The erring driver is a driver of the appellant. The age of the deceased at the time of his death has been fixed at 52. There is no dispute that 6 persons were dependent on the income of the deceased. These aspects remain undisputed. 8. The contentious issue is the monthly income taken by the Tribunal, namely, Rs.4,500/-. 9. The deceased was a Mason in Chennai. Ex.P5 is his membership card issued by their association. There is no dispute that 6 persons were dependent on the income of the deceased. These aspects remain undisputed. 8. The contentious issue is the monthly income taken by the Tribunal, namely, Rs.4,500/-. 9. The deceased was a Mason in Chennai. Ex.P5 is his membership card issued by their association. The claimants mentioned Rs.7,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are colleagues of the deceased, have spoken about the extent of income of the deceased. The Tribunal had taken only Rs.4500/- p.m. Thus, Rs.4500/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is backed by evidence and materials. We concur with that. 10. As per SARLA VERMA (supra), for persons at the age of 52 years, the multiplier is 11'. But, in this case, Tribunal had taken only 10. 11. Deducting a portion of income towards pleasure and other expenses of the deceased has come to stay for the reason that the amount in lumpsum which will be earned by the deceased during a course of time has been paid in advance. The problem of making deduction under this head differ in different decisions. This issue was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA's case (supra). According to that, this deduction depends upon the marital status of the deceased, number of persons depended upon the deceased. But in rare cases, for special reasons even if the deceased was a bachelor, the rate of deduction may be some time on par with the deduction made with reference to married persons. 12. As per SARLA VERMA (supra), if dependents are 4 to 6, deduction shall be 1/4th of the income of the deceased. However, in the case before us, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. Thus, on choosing the multiplier and on making deduction, the Tribunal overlooked the decision in SARLA VERMA's case. 13. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that if multiplier and deduction are adopted as laid down in SARLA VERMA's case, it will result in enhancing the compensation amount, however, no independent appeal or cross appeal has been made by the claimants and in such circumstances, they cannot aspire for more amount. 14. 13. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that if multiplier and deduction are adopted as laid down in SARLA VERMA's case, it will result in enhancing the compensation amount, however, no independent appeal or cross appeal has been made by the claimants and in such circumstances, they cannot aspire for more amount. 14. Similar situation arose in PADMAVATHY (supra), wherein a Division Bench of this court held that if principles laid down in SARLA VERMA's case is applied, the respondents / claimants would get more amount although appeal has not been filed by the claimants. Applying the law, this court granted enhancement of compensation in an appeal filed by the insurer. 15. Now, we also look at this matter from a different angle. In this appellate forum, the findings of the Tribunal both on facts and on law has been reopened. Is it in issue before us. When patently it was wrong for not following SARLA VERMA's decision and if it is affirmed, simply because the claimants have not filed an appeal would result in giving a seal of approval to a wrong decision of the Tribunal. I am afraid that we cannot adopt such a course, namely, dismissing the appeal without disturbing such a finding ofthe Tribunal. 16. Thus, the quantum of compensation is required to be revised. Out of Rs.4500/-, the residue, namely, contribution to the family by the deceased is Rs.3375/-. Therefore, the annual contribution would be Rs.40,500/- (Rs.3375/- x 12 = Rs.40,500/-). Applying the multiplier of 11', the amount comes to Rs.4,45,500/- (Rs.40,500/- x 11 = Rs.4,45,500/-). With respect to other items of compensation, we are not interfering as they are fair and reasonable. 17. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The respondents / claimants are awarded modified compensation of Rs.5,15,500/-with 7.5 % interest per annum from the date of filing the original claim petition till deposit. Since the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already deposited, the appellant will deposit the enhanced portion of the compensation with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Within one week from today, the respondents / claimants will pay the Court Fee due for enhanced portion of the compensation. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the ratio already fixed by the Tribunal. The C.M.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Within one week from today, the respondents / claimants will pay the Court Fee due for enhanced portion of the compensation. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the ratio already fixed by the Tribunal. The C.M.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.