Judgment : This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against the order dated 25.06.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.904 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, whereby and where under the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- with 6% per annum interest from the date of the petition till realisation as against the claim of Rs.3,20,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that on 12.01.2008 at about 9.40 a.m. the deceased – Bondalapati Nandini was travelling along with others in auto bearing No.AP 7TT 766 to reach the Mill at Nallapadu for attending coolie work and when the auto reached near Check Post, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP10 Z 1162 came in opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the auto, resultantly, the deceased along with other occupants of the auto received grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged about 17 years and was earning Rs.100/- per day by doing coolie work. The petitioners are the parents and dependents of the deceased. 4. Respondent -APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus by its driver which resulting the death of the deceased, and as to the entitlement of the petitioners to claim compensation and the quantum thereof. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 besides examining one of the passengers in the auto as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of respondent –APSRTC, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 besides examining one of the passengers in the auto as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of respondent –APSRTC, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, allowed the claim petition granting a total compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- with 6% per annum interest from the date of the petition till realisation as against the claim of Rs.3,20,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the APSRTC. 8. Heard the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC -respondent - appellant and the learned counsel for the petitioners – claimants. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the APSRTC bus which is contrary to the evidence on record, and as a matter of fact, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of the auto. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding Rs.4,37,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,20,000/-, which is contrary to law. The learned counsel contended thatsince the deceased was a spinster (unmarried) at the time of accident, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ),the personal expenses of the deceased have to be deducted at 50% out of her income. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners- claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation taking into consideration the material available on record, and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 11. So far as the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the petitioners had examined PW.2, one of the passengers travelling in the auto along with the deceased. 11. So far as the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the petitioners had examined PW.2, one of the passengers travelling in the auto along with the deceased. His evidence is that there were three persons in the auto and two children and no one was sitting by the side of the driver and that APSRTC bus came from opposite direction and while overtaking, it hit the auto. Further, Exs.A.1 FIR, Ex.A.2 - inquest report and Ex.A.3 - post mortem report indicate that the APSRTC bus was involved in the accident and as a result of which, the deceased died. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the APSRTC bus was not at fault. 12. So far as the awarding of quantum of compensation is concerned, it is seen that the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), if the deceased was a spinster (unmarried), 50% of the income has to be deduced towards her personal expenses. Therefore, this Court is inclined to deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased out of Rs.36,000/-, which was her annual income. Thus, the loss of dependency would arrive at Rs.18,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged 17 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,24,000/- (18,000/- x18). Apart from that, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. 13. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners- claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand) only with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization, but not Rs.4,37,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.