JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant in MACMA No. 1742 of 2014 is third respondent in MVOP No. 255 of 2011on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and the respondents are the claimants and other respondents in the said case. The appellants in MACMA No. 2898 of 2014 are the claimants in MVOP No. 255 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. Both the appeals are filed against one decree and order passed in MVOP No. 255 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and both the appeals are clubbed and common judgment is pronounced in both the appeals. 2. Both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of P. Sivakumar in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 11.03.2009. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 11.03.2009 at 10.00 p.m. the deceased/P. Sivakumar and others went to Sompuram village of Vepada for attending village festival programmes at night on the pulsar motor cycle, while they were returning to S. Kota village, when reached near Kothuru junction at about 11.30 p.m., the 1st respondent being the driver of tipper lorry bearing No. AP 31 W 5648 negligently stopped the vehicle on the State High Way road without taking any precautionary measures, due to the negligence of the first respondent, the deceased dashed on the rear right side of the tipper lorry, as a result, the deceased and pillion riders fell on the road, received grievous injuries and the deceased was died on the way to hospital and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident and death of the deceased viz. Patnala Sivakumar is due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (tipper) bearing No. AP 31 W 5648 by its driver? (ii) What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so at what quantum and from which of the respondents? (iv) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of respondent No. 3 RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the tipper vehicle on the State High Way road without taking any precautionary measures and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the claimants towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, both the parties, the claimants and the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company filed the appeals. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimants in MVOP No. 255 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram are entitled for enhancement of claim as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as PW1. She is not the eye witness to the accident. She got examined the eye witness to the accident as PW3. PW3 deposed in his evidence that on 11.03.2009 at 10.00 p.m., himself, the deceased and another went to Sompuram village on pulsar motor cycle for attending village festival programme at night time. She is not the eye witness to the accident. She got examined the eye witness to the accident as PW3. PW3 deposed in his evidence that on 11.03.2009 at 10.00 p.m., himself, the deceased and another went to Sompuram village on pulsar motor cycle for attending village festival programme at night time. At that time, the first respondent being the driver of tipper lorry bearing No. AP 31 W 5648 stopped the lorry in the middle of the State high way road without taking any precautionary measures, due to the negligence of the first respondent, the deceased dashed the rear right side of the tipper lorry, as a result, the deceased, himself along with pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 copy of charge sheet clearly establishes that because of the rashness and negligent parking of the driver of the tipper lorry, the accident was occurred. 12. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the first respondent, driver of the tipper lorry, without taking any precautionary measures, stopped the tipper lorry in the middle of the State high way road and because of his negligent attitude only, the accident was occurred and the rider of the two-wheeler received grievous injuries and died on the way of hospital. 13. The deceased is a railway employee by the date of accident. As per Ex.X2 attested copy of relevant pages in the Service Register of the deceased, the age of the deceased was 38 at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased as per Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 is ‘15’. 14. PW2-P.Tirumala Rao is Office Superintendent (Legal) in East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam, in his evidence he deposed that the deceased used to work in their Department as Track Man Grade II at Araku Valley and in support of the same, he filed Ex.X2 and Ex.X3. Ex.X2 is the photostat copy of relevant pages of Service Register of deceased. Ex.X3 discloses about the salary particulars of the deceased for the month of February, 2009. In cross examination nothing was elicited from PW2 to discredit the testimony of PW2. In the cross examination, the evidence of PW2 is not disturbed the material aspects of the case. Ex.X2 is the photostat copy of relevant pages of Service Register of deceased. Ex.X3 discloses about the salary particulars of the deceased for the month of February, 2009. In cross examination nothing was elicited from PW2 to discredit the testimony of PW2. In the cross examination, the evidence of PW2 is not disturbed the material aspects of the case. As per Ex.X2 the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.11,365/- per month i.e. Rs.1,36,380/- per annum. Here the dependent family members are 4, therefore, 1/4th income shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So Rs.1,36,380/- x ¼ = Rs.34,095/- after deducting the same, the financial dependency that was lost by the petitioners/claimants, arrived at Rs.15,34,275/-. (Rs.1,36,380/- - 34,095 = Rs.1,02,285/- x 15). 15. Learned counsel for Insurance Company relied on a decision of Supreme Court of India (from Gauhati) (DB) in between Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jhuma Saha, 2007 Law Suit (SC) 43 it was held that: The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving, the question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition u/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable. Here in the present case, the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 clearly goes to show that due to negligent attitude of the driver of the tipper lorry only the accident was occurred and the accident was not occurred due to own fault of the deceased. 16. It was argued by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and relied on a decision reported in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. K. Anjaiah, 2004 (4) ALD 444 . In that decision it was held: “It is admitted that there was triple riding on the scooter. Under those circumstances, even in the absence of independent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company that the accident had occurred due to triple riding, it can be reasonable presumed that the rider of the scooter was discomforted by reasons of allowing two pillion riders and thus contributed in causing the accident. Under those circumstances, even in the absence of independent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company that the accident had occurred due to triple riding, it can be reasonable presumed that the rider of the scooter was discomforted by reasons of allowing two pillion riders and thus contributed in causing the accident. Had he been riding the scooter with one pillion rider, probably he would have averted the accident by swerving the scooter to the extreme left side, but could not do so probably, his hands and legs movement was limited due to the congestion. In such view of the matter, the culpability in causing the accident is fixed at 75% on the part of the driver of the accident lorry and 25% on the part of the rider of the scooter.” Here in the present case as per the evidence on record and as per the documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the deceased was riding the two-wheeler with two pillion riders. The two-wheeler vehicles are meant only for two persons i.e. rider and pillion rider. More than two persons travelling in a motor cycle or any other two-wheeler, undoubtedly such action of the rider/deceased would become not legal. When rider is riding two-wheeler with two pillion riders, normally because of restricted movements of his legs, he cannot have to complete control over the brake. The movements of his hands also so restricted. When that be so, definitely the rider of the two-wheeler cannot have full control over the vehicle. Here in the present case because of the death of the deceased, the first petitioner lost her husband at the age of 33 only, second and third petitioners lost their father at the age of 13 and 11 years respectively, fourth petitioner/mother of the deceased and dependent upon the deceased son, lost her son at the age of 57 years. As per Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 coupled with the evidence of PW3, the accident was purely occurred due to negligent parking of the driver of the tipper lorry in State high way in the middle of the road. Charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the tipper lorry in a criminal case before the Magistrate Court. 17. Considering the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to deduct 10% of amount from out of Rs.15,34,275/- in violation of Section 128 of Act. Charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the tipper lorry in a criminal case before the Magistrate Court. 17. Considering the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to deduct 10% of amount from out of Rs.15,34,275/- in violation of Section 128 of Act. Thus the claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.15,34,275.00 - 10% = Rs.13,80,848/- and an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the first petitioner towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased and an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. In total, an amount of Rs.14,50,848/- is awarded towards the total compensation to the claimants. The first petitioner, wife of the deceased is entitled an amount of Rs.7,50,848/-, the second and third petitioners, who are children of the deceased are entitled an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- each, the fourth petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/-. The first petitioner is entitled to withdraw her entire share amount along with total interest and costs on Rs.14,50,848/-. Fourth petitioner is also entitled to withdraw her entire share. The share of minors i.e. petitioners 2 and 3 shall be deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority. After attaining the majority, the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw their respective share amount with interest thereon. 18. In the result, MACMA No. 1742 of 2014, filed by the Insurance company, is partly allowed and the MACMA No. 2898 of 2014, filed by the claimants, is dismissed and the impugned award in MVOP No. 255 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, is modified to the extent as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.