JUDGMENT : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel. 2. The present M.A.C.M.A. No. 3676 of 2005 is preferred by the claimants challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 13.09.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1125 of 2001 by the Chairman Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, FAC-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2.1 Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased/Lanka Koteswararao (aged about 26 years on the date of death) and the appellant No. 3 is the brother of the deceased (who was a minor on the date of occurrence). 3. The appellants contended that Mr. Lanka Koteswararao, who is a contractor-cum-employee in Chaitanya Power Systems, Hyderabad was carrying some material in DMC Toyota Mini Lorry bearing No. AP-28-T-9514 at Hyderabad after loading electric panel boards to be transported and delivered at Vijayawada. When the lorry reached Kesara bridge near Kanchikacherla Village, Krishna District due to negligence of the driver while overtaking other lorry colluded with that lorry. As a result of the accident, Lanka Koteswararao suffered multiple grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. 4. Crime bearing No. 93 of 2001 was also registered by Kanchikacherla Police Station against that lorry driver (Respondent No. 1). It is further stated by the appellants that as on the date of the accident, the appellants namely the parents and younger brother of the deceased were totally dependents on the income of the deceased, and therefore, they have been put to severe hardship due to as they have lost their only economic support besides sufferance pan and mental agony due to the sudden death of the deceased. The Claimants/appellants have filed claim for Rs.1,60,000/-. 5. The Managing Director of Chaitanya Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad had issued salary certificate showing that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- (marked as Ex.A5). The claimants/appellants examined PWs. 1 and 2 namely the mother of the deceased and one Pedapudi Prabhakar Rao, who was driver in that mini lorry along with the deceased. On behalf of the Respondent No. 2, RW-1 was examined. The claimants/appellants marked Exs.A1 to A7 that includes certified copies of the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report of the deceased, charge sheet respectively and salary certificate issued by the employer, way bill relating to the goods taken by the deceased and delivery challan-cum-invoice belongs to machinery. On behalf of the Respondent No. 2, RW-1 was examined. The claimants/appellants marked Exs.A1 to A7 that includes certified copies of the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report of the deceased, charge sheet respectively and salary certificate issued by the employer, way bill relating to the goods taken by the deceased and delivery challan-cum-invoice belongs to machinery. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 namely the copy of the insurance policy was filed. After the examination, the Tribunal had granted Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation (including of sufferance of pain and mental agony, loss of estate, funeral expenses) along with 9% interest was granted from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of deposit. Out of the compensation awarded, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- each and appellant No. 3 was entitled to Rs.20,000/-. 6. Mr. B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/appellants. 7. The claimants/appellants contended before this Court as follows: (a) that the Tribunal wrongly carried the annual income of the deceased to be only Rs.15,000/- by taking into account only the notional income treating the deceased as contactor and it had completely ignored Ex.A5 which is salary certificate issued by the employer namely the Chaitanya Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad on the ground that the employee has not been examined. (b) that the Tribunal has wrongly place reliance only on the contents of the First Information Report where the avocation of the deceased was only shown to be a contractor “whereas the First Information Report was only lodged by PW-2, who was also travelling in the same lorry as that of the deceased and that he would not know the actual arrangement that exists between the deceased and his employer namely Chaitanya Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad. (c) that the Tribunal committed an error in granting only Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses as against Rs.10,000/- as claim and similarly grant of Rs.5,000/- for the sufferance of pain and mental agony as against claim of Rs.20,000/- is also highly perverse. (d) that the grant of compensation to the claimants/appellants only as against the respondent no. 1, who is the driver of the lorry is illegal untenable as it is a well settled law that the respondent no. (d) that the grant of compensation to the claimants/appellants only as against the respondent no. 1, who is the driver of the lorry is illegal untenable as it is a well settled law that the respondent no. 2 is in fact liable to pay the compensation on the first instance and recovered the same from driver/owner of the vehicle on the principle of “pay and recovery.” (e) that when the compensation that was initially claimed was Rs.1,60,000/- later the claimants have enhanced the claim to Rs.3,00,000/- that stood amended was not taken into account by the Tribunal as it does not find anywhere in the Judgment though there is a mention in the decree dated 13.09.2005 in M.V.O.P. No. 1125 of 2001. (f) that the Tribunal did not taken into account and did not estimate the loss of future income. 8. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 contended that sustained the reasoning given by the Tribunal insofar as fixing of annual income is concerned on the basis that the salary certificate Ex.A5 cannot be taken into consideration as the person who issue the said certificate has not been examined. She has also contended that supported the findings of the Tribunal insofar as the application of multiplier, reduction of funeral expenses and loss of estate. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, it is to be seen whether the findings rendered by the Tribunal below could be suggested or could be variant. 10. As regards the assessment of income is concerned, the Tribunal as discarded the Ex.A5 (salary certificate) and had only taken into consideration the notional income by issuing that he is only a contractor and assess the annual income as Rs.15,000/- and deducted 1/3rd of the same for personal expenditure and maintenance and finally arrived at the annual income that has to be taken into consideration for calculation of compensation as Rs.10,000/-. 11. The documentary evidence filed in support of the claimants showing the deceased as an employee of M/s. Chaitanya Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad, having been issued by the Managing Director ought not have been discarded only on the basis that Managing Director could not have been examined is incorrect. Settled law as regards grant of compensation to the victims are they kith and kin who are involved in motor vehicles accidents has to be weighed of a different scale. Settled law as regards grant of compensation to the victims are they kith and kin who are involved in motor vehicles accidents has to be weighed of a different scale. The benevolent legislation enacted in their favour has to be given full affect and therefore the strict Rules of Civil Practice cannot be applied when the Court is undertaking the exercise to calculate the compensation that is just and reasonable and also meaningful. From the averments noted in the impugned order it appears that neither the respondent No. 1 nor the respondent No. 2 have taken serious objection to the Ex.A5. The finding of the Tribunal is only based on the content of the FIR (Ex.A1) wherein the co-passenger (survivor in the accident) who lodged the FIR had only stated that the deceased was a contractor and therefore only notional income could be calculated and taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. 12. Therefore, I hold that the deceased was an employee of M/s. Chaitanya Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad and that his monthly salary is Rs.4,000/- aggregating to Rs.48,000/- per annum. Deduction 1/3rd personal expenditure and maintenance of the deceased would come to Rs.16,000/- and therefore, I assess the amount that is to be calculated as annual income towards personal maintenance and expenditure as Rs.32,000/- per annum. Funeral expenses as Rs.10,000/- as claimed as well as Rs.20,000/- as claimed pain and mental agony also allowed. Application of multiplier of 17 x Rs.32,000/- is Rs.5,44,000/- and Rs.30,000/- total Rs.5,74,000/- with 9% per annum interest from the date of presentation of the claim to be before the Tribunal till the date of deposit. 13. Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed. 14. It is contended that by applying the ration envisaged in 1994 (2) SCC 176 multiplier 17 is applicable for a person who is aged about 26 years. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as the finding of the Tribunal was to show that the post-mortem report also as indicated that the deceased was aged about 26 years. The application of multiplier 15 by the Tribunal would be erroneous. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited Sarala Varma’s (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide cited 1994(2) SCC 176 had indicated that for the age group between 22 to 26/30 multiplier 17 would be applicable. The application of multiplier 15 by the Tribunal would be erroneous. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited Sarala Varma’s (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide cited 1994(2) SCC 176 had indicated that for the age group between 22 to 26/30 multiplier 17 would be applicable. This submission of the appellant finds force and therefore is sustained. 16. Pay and recovery. 17. Manuara Khatural Others vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2017 (4) SCC 796 .