JUDGMENT: U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. Aggrieved by the award dated 09.10.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.88/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, granting compensation of Rs.12,67,500/-against the claim of Rs.43.00 lakhs for the death of M.Kumar in a motor vehicle accident, the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed the instant appeal. 2. The petitioner’s case is that on 22.04.2012 when the deceased was proceeding on a two wheeler and reached near Venganapalle Village in Chittoor District, a lorry bearing No.NL 02/K 8504 came in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased causing severe injuries. Later he died while he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. It is averred that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, his wife, children and parents became destitutes. On these pleas the petitioners who are the wife, four minor children and aged parents of the deceased who are his LRs filed M.V.O.P.No.88/2013 and claimed Rs.43.00 lakhs as compensation against respondents 1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry respectively. (a) 1st respondent remained ex parte. (b) The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the claim petition on the main contention that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself as he suddenly entered the main road on his motorcycle. It is further contended that the claim is highly excessive and exorbitant. (c) During trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants and Ex.B1-policy copy was marked on behalf of 2nd respondent. No oral evidence is adduced on its behalf. (d) The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record awarded Rs.12,67,500/-as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% p.a. as follows: (1) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000-00 (2) Damages towards dependency, future income of the deceased Rs. 11,47,500-00 (3) Loss of consortium to 1st petitioner Rs. 1,00,000-00 (4) Transportation charges Rs. 10,000-00 Total Rs. 12,67,500-00 Hence, the appeal. 3. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. 4. 10,000-00 (2) Damages towards dependency, future income of the deceased Rs. 11,47,500-00 (3) Loss of consortium to 1st petitioner Rs. 1,00,000-00 (4) Transportation charges Rs. 10,000-00 Total Rs. 12,67,500-00 Hence, the appeal. 3. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. 4. Severely fulminating the compensation as low and inadequate, learned counsel for the appellants would firstly argue that the Tribunal had committed serious mistake in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-instead of Rs.20,000/-. He would argue that the deceased was young man of 30 years and was engaged in contract works in laying the ceramic tiles and granite slabs to the buildings and having regard to the nature of artistic and skilled profession pursued by the deceased, the lower Tribunal ought to have accepted his monthly income as Rs.20,000/-. Instead, it took only Rs.5,000/-which is grossly low. Learned counsel would alternately argue that even the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer during 2012 was around Rs.5,600/-as per G.O.Ms.No.170 of Labour Employment Training & Factories Department dated 19.03.2012. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed more a reasonable amount as the monthly income of the deceased. Nextly, he argued that the number of dependants who are depending on the income of the deceased are seven and therefore, following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 = MANU/SC/0606/2009 the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th instead of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses from the gross earnings of the deceased. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation suitably. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent while supporting the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, argued that the pleadings and evidence produced by the petitioners are not clear as to whether the deceased was a contractor for laying ceramic tiles and granite slabs or was he a skilled labourer in laying them. Therefore, the Tribunal having regard to all the facts rightly fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-and accordingly, fixed the compensation. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether compensation fixed by the lower Tribunal was just and reasonable or it needs reassessment? 7. Therefore, the Tribunal having regard to all the facts rightly fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-and accordingly, fixed the compensation. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether compensation fixed by the lower Tribunal was just and reasonable or it needs reassessment? 7. Point: The predominant contention of the petitioner is that the deceased was young and aged 30 years and by doing the contract works in laying ceramic tiles and granite slabs, earning Rs.20,000/-per month. The petitioner examined PWs 1 to 4. PW1 is the wife and PWs 2 & 3 are parents of the deceased and PW4 is the eye witness to the accident. They produced Exs.A1 to A10. It must be said that as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, there is no plausible material divulging the occupation and income of the deceased. The documentary evidence is concerned, except filing exhibits A1 to A6 documents relating to the accident such as FIR, charge sheet, Post Mortem report etc. and exhibits A7 to A10 which are relating to the house property tax receipt and electricity bill etc. relating to the house of the deceased, no single document was filed showing the nature of his occupation and his earnings. One way the petitioners claimed that he was engaged in the contract works of laying ceramic tiles and granite slabs, and on the other hand, it is argued that the deceased was a skilled worker and even according to G.O.Ms.No.170 of Labour Employment Training & Factories Department dated 19.03.2012, the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer was about Rs.5,600/-. In the wake of lacking of a reliable evidence in respect of the nature of avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal cannot be found fault for fixing the earnings of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-per month. Therefore, the contention of the appellants in this regard cannot be countenanced. (a) The next argument is concerned, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for appellants. The Tribunal having accepted that the deceased was survived by seven dependants i.e., wife, four minor children and parents, surprisingly deduced 1/4th instead of 1/5th towards his personal and living expenses. In Sarla Verma’s case supra the Apex Court, regarding the deductions for personal living expenses, has observed thus: “14. The Tribunal having accepted that the deceased was survived by seven dependants i.e., wife, four minor children and parents, surprisingly deduced 1/4th instead of 1/5th towards his personal and living expenses. In Sarla Verma’s case supra the Apex Court, regarding the deductions for personal living expenses, has observed thus: “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” (b) Therefore, 1/5th is to be deducted from the earnings of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. If so the compensation for loss of dependency comes to: Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.2,500/-= Rs.7,500/-÷ 1/5 = Rs.1,500/- Balance of Rs.6,000/-x 12 x 17 = Rs.12,24,000/- (c) Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners under different heads is as follows: (1) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000-00 (2) Damages towards dependency, future income of the deceased Rs. 12,24,000-00 (3) Loss of consortium to 1st petitioner Rs. 1,00,000-00 (4) Transportation charges Rs. 10,000-00 Total 13,44,000-00 8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.12,67,500/-to Rs.13,44,000/-with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of M.V.O.P. till the date of realization against the respondents. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioners can take out execution against them. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.