JUDGMENT: The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Shaik Bude Saheb in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 13.09.2006. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: The deceased, at the time of his death, was working as Sub Post Master at 77 Tallur village and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- and the deceased was hale and healthy and he used to spend his earnings to the welfare of his family consisting of petitioners. The deceased along with his colleagues went to Delhi to attend a National Conference of their Union as delegates. On 12.09.2006, the deceased along with his colleagues planned to see Tajmahal at Agra and engaged a Maruthi van bearing No.DL9CB 8761 and when they reached near Chata village on 13.09.2006 at about 2.00 a.m., the driver of the Maruthi van slowed the vehicle without giving any signal, meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing No.UP81N 9895 came in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi van, as a result, the deceased received multiple injuries, later succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The second respondent remained exparte. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are 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 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No.UP81N 9895 and Maruti van No.DL9CB 8761 and that resulted in death of the deceased Shaik Bude Saheb? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 7. ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.4,29,932/- to the claimants towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicles, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2, who is the direct witness to the accident. As per the evidence of PW2, himself along with the deceased and others planned to visit Tajmahal at Agra and they engaged a Maruthi Van and when reached Chata village, the van was slowed down by its driver, in the meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing No.UP 81N 9895 came in opposite to the van and hit the van, as a result, the deceased and other two persons died. During the course of cross-examination, he admits that there are five persons travelling in the Maruthi Van at the time of accident other than the driver. 12. The first respondent examined RW1/S.Virpal Singh, who is the driver of UPRTC bus. As per his evidence, he took over the bus at about 5.30 a.m. and after completing 2KMs journey, a Maruthi van bearing No.DL9CB 8761 came in their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the front part of the bus and van driver alone is responsible to cause the accident. As per his evidence, he took over the bus at about 5.30 a.m. and after completing 2KMs journey, a Maruthi van bearing No.DL9CB 8761 came in their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the front part of the bus and van driver alone is responsible to cause the accident. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons, came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of UPRTC bus and also the driver of the Maruthi Van, since the driver of the van died, a case was registered against driver of the UPRTC bus, who is alive and charge sheet was also filed against the driver of RTC bus only. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons in its order came to conclusion that the third and fourth respondents, who are the insurers of first and second respondents are jointly liable to pay the compensation. No appeal is filed by any of the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,29,932/-. Coming to the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW3. As per the evidence of PW3, the deceased worked as a Sub Post Master and he used to draw net salary of Rs.5,443/- per month. As per Ex.X1, the date of birth of the deceased was 01.06.1958 and as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years. Therefore, the Tribunal, from out of the net salary, deducted 1/3 of income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The net salary of the deceased was Rs.5,443/- i.e., after deducting 1/3 income of the salary it would come Rs.3,629/- per month i.e., Rs.43,548/- per annum. The dependents on the deceased are five in number. Therefore, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The net salary of the deceased was Rs.5,443/- per month i.e., Rs.65,316/- per annum, from out of Rs.65,316/-, ¼ income i.e., an amount of Rs.16,329/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, net annual income available to the dependents of the deceased is Rs.48,987/-. The net salary of the deceased was Rs.5,443/- per month i.e., Rs.65,316/- per annum, from out of Rs.65,316/-, ¼ income i.e., an amount of Rs.16,329/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, net annual income available to the dependents of the deceased is Rs.48,987/-. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 case, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘13’. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.6,36,831/- (48,987 x 13) towards loss of dependency. The claimants are further awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and the first claimant is further awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total, the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.7,06,831/- from the respondents. 14. It is not in dispute by both sides that both the offending vehicles i.e., the crime vehicle of first respondent is insured with forth respondent and the policy also in force and the crime vehicle of second respondent is insured with third respondent and the policy is in force and the drivers of the offending vehicles are also having valid driving licenses by the date of accident. Therefore, 50% of the enhanced compensation amount has to be deposited by respondents 1 and 4 and the remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation amount has to be deposed by respondents 2 and 3. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order dated 19.01.2009 passed in MVOP No.118/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.4,29,932/- to Rs.7,06,831/-. The petitioners are entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,76,899/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and 4 are directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.