JUDGMENT: Two appellants, who are wife & minor daughter of the deceased, had preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The appellants earlier in view of the death of the deceased in a road accident had filed a claim petition; vide O.P.No.264 of 2006, in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). The appellant No.1-wife and appellant No.2-minor daughter had filed original petition after the death of P.Nabi Rasool, who died in a road accident. 3. It was the case of the claimants that on 08.02.2006, P.Nabi Rasool was transporting flower bags and moving with others in a jeep bearing Registration No.AP-21V-9609. When the jeep was proceeding near Peddagutta turning, a lorry bearing Registration No.AP-21-Y-0888, which was coming from Gooty side from opposite direction dashed the jeep. It is the case of the claimants that the driver of the lorry was driving rashly and negligently and in the said accident, Nabi Rasool (husband of the appellant No.1) and two others died on the spot and other occupants sustained grievous and multiple injuries. Since it was the case of rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle, that is, the lorry by its driver, a case, vide Crime No.21 of 2006 was registered in Gooty Police Station against the driver of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, the claimants claimed that the deceased used to purchase flowers from different places and selling them at Gooty and Vajrakarur and from the said business, he was earning Rs.5,000/-per month. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In the claim petition before the Tribunal, besides the insurer of the lorry, namely, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the jeep and parents of the deceased were also arrayed as respondents. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased, at the time of death, was aged about 25 years. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2, that is, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited filed separate counter, denied and disputed that the deceased was aged about 25 years and doing business and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased, at the time of death, was aged about 25 years. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2, that is, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited filed separate counter, denied and disputed that the deceased was aged about 25 years and doing business and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Respondent No.2 also submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver in which the deceased was traveling and contended that the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the accident. The insurer of the jeep, that is, National Insurance Company Limited, also filed its counter before the Tribunal and took a stand that the police had registered a case against the driver of the lorry for rash and negligent driving. During the investigation the allegation was found true and as such the police submitted charge sheet against only the driver of the lorry. It was also disputed that it was not the case of contributory negligence rather it was out and out case of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, which has also been corroborated by filing of the charge sheet by the police against the lorry driver. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings on record, framed the following three issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 8-2-2006 at about 11.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-21-Y-0888 by its driver and dashed against the Jeep and caused the death of the deceased? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? (3) To what relief? Before the Tribunal in support of its case, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and exhibits A1 to A5 were got marked. However, respondent Nos.2 & 4, preferred not to produce any witness, but exhibited exhibits B1 & B2. On the basis of materials brought on record before the Tribunal, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, meaning thereby, it was held by the Tribunal that on the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry was responsible for rash and negligent driving and was solely responsible for the accident in which the deceased died. On the basis of materials brought on record before the Tribunal, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, meaning thereby, it was held by the Tribunal that on the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry was responsible for rash and negligent driving and was solely responsible for the accident in which the deceased died. However, on the question of compensation, though total compensation amount was claimed as Rs.5,00,000/-and it was claimed that the deceased on the date of the accident was aged about 25 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/-per month, the learned Tribunal accepting the age of the deceased did not accept the claim of monthly income of the deceased in view of the fact that no such documentary evidence was brought on record to show regarding the earning of Rs.5,000/-per month by the deceased. The learned Tribunal answered all the three issues in favour of the claimants; but did not accept the income of the deceased which was claimed at Rs.5,000/-per month. Instead of considering the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-per month, the learned Tribunal arrived on the point of loss of dependency on the income of the deceased @ Rs.1200/-per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, it was held that the monthly contribution of the deceased was Rs.800/-per month. And, as such the yearly contribution was Rs.9,600/-The learned Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimants regarding the age of the deceased as 25 years and multiplied the income treating in the group of deceased with multiplier ‘17’ and thereafter, the total contribution to the family was arrived at Rs.9600/-X 17 = Rs.1,63,200/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium and further granted a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the total loss of contribution to the family as per the decision of the Tribunal was arrived at Rs.1,93,200/-. 4. On the point of apportionment, despite the fact that the claimants had claimed that the parents, that is, respondent Nos.5 & 6 were not dependent upon their son, the Tribunal held them entitled and granted compensation of Rs.20,000/-to each out of Rs.1,93,200/-. The appellant No.2, who was minor daughter was given compensation of Rs.53,200/-, which was directed to be kept in a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years initially. The remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was allotted to the appellant No.1. The appellant No.2, who was minor daughter was given compensation of Rs.53,200/-, which was directed to be kept in a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years initially. The remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was allotted to the appellant No.1. Accordingly, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,93,200/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 5. Heard Smt. N.Sasikala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Except the learned counsel for respondent No.2, none appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents. 6. Smt. N.Sasikala, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal without any reason has reduced the income of the deceased from Rs.5,000/-per month to Rs.1,200/-per month. It has been argued that since the deceased was purchasing flowers from different places and selling the same in the market, there was no reason to produce any documentary evidence such as receipt e.t.c., to show the income. The Tribunal, without any basis, had reduced the income of the deceased to Rs.1,200/-per month whereas even on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, on the date of death of the deceased, his income would have been Rs.100/-per day, that is, Rs.3,000/-per month. But even then, the same was not accepted. It has further been argued that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself to adopt the multiplier of ‘17’ since as per the established case, the deceased on the date of the accident was aged about 25 years. As per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier that has to be applied is ‘18’, but not ‘17’. Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the fact regarding 1/3rd of the income to be treated as personal income of the deceased. Smt. Sasikala, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(6) SCC 121 . Learned counsel has argued that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly reduced the income to Rs.1,200/-per month, that too, without any plausible reason or explanation. 7. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel opposed the appeal and argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and need no interference. 8. Learned counsel has argued that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly reduced the income to Rs.1,200/-per month, that too, without any plausible reason or explanation. 7. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel opposed the appeal and argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and need no interference. 8. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the entire material available on record. 9. In the present appeal, the only question that is required to be examined is as to whether the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-per month or not? And also adopted the multiplier correctly or not? 10. In the instant case, the death of the deceased occurred in an accident, which occurred on 08-02-2006. The claimants though had not produced documents, but had claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-per month. In support of the said income, no documents were brought on record nor any proof regarding the assessment of income of the deceased was brought on record. In such a situation, it was desirable for the learned Tribunal to adopt the income of the deceased on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. However, the learned Tribunal, without any reason, reduced the income from Rs.5,000/-per month to Rs.1,200/-per month. It has consistently been held that in such situation, the Minimum Wages were required to be taken note of. However, nothing has been brought on record to show as to exactly what was the minimum wage on the date of the accident as per the Minimum Wages Act. I am of the opinion that considering the situation, it would be appropriate to do agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and consider the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month, which would be just and proper. So far as adopting the multiplier is concerned, as per Schedule II of the M.V.Act, in the age group of 25 to 30 years, the multiplier has been indicated as ‘18’, and as such, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years, it would be appropriate to adopt the multiplier of ‘18’ in the present case. In that view of the matter, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly income, i.e., Rs.3,000/-, the yearly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,000/-X 12 = Rs.24,000/-. In that view of the matter, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly income, i.e., Rs.3,000/-, the yearly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,000/-X 12 = Rs.24,000/-. And, this amount can be multiplied by multiplier of ‘18’. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-X 18 = Rs.4,32,000/-. In the present case, respondent Nos.5 & 6 have preferred not to appear and before the Tribunal also, the claimants had taken a stand that they were not dependents on the deceased and as such, whatever amount is to be paid, the same is to be paid to both the appellants. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent of enhancement of income of the deceased from Rs.1,200/-to Rs.3,000/-per month with correcting multiplier from ‘17’ to multiplier of ‘18’. As per the calculation, after deducting 1/3rd from Rs.3,000/-, it comes to Rs.2,000/-and the annual income works out to Rs.24,000/-and if multiplier of ‘18’ is applied, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium and further granted a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and the compensation granted under the said heads needs no enhancement. Accordingly, the total loss of contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. The insurer of the lorry, i.e., respondent No.2 is directed to pay the remaining compensation after adjusting the compensation amount already paid to the appellants/claimants forthwith with interest @ 7.5% per annum, as earlier granted by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. 12. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.