JUDGMENT : (A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.) Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order, dated 23.07.2007, in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) by the claimants to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is husband of the first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.04.2005, awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- towards compensation. 2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience 3. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner is the wife and second and third petitioners are the major sons of the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. as on the date of accident. Petitioners are dependants on the earnings of the deceased. On 08.04.2005 at about 06:00 pm. deceased was engaged as coolie in the Tractor bearing registration No.AP 16 AK 901 with Trailer No.972 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) of the first respondent for weighing and un-loading paddy along with some other coolies. After un-loading the paddy, while the offending vehicle was returning from Marrivada village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, it turned turtle. Immediately after the accident, all the injured in the offending vehicle were shifted to Family Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. Later, the deceased was shifted to American Hospital, Gudivada, for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on 12.04.2005 at about 01:45 PM and a case in Crime No.38 of 2005 was registered. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. First respondent is the owner and second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which was validly insured at the time of accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. First respondent is the owner and second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which was validly insured at the time of accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. First respondent filed a counter contending in substance that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent and the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid driving license and if the petitioners are entitled to compensation, it can be only from the second respondent being the insurer as such prays to dismiss the Petition against him. 5. Second respondent/insurer got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the manner of the accident and occupation of the deceased. The deceased and other injured were traveling in the offending vehicle as un-authorized passengers. The offending vehicle was used for transport purpose other than for the purposes for which it was meant for. There are violations of policy conditions. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount, and from which of the respondents? 2. Whether the claim of the petitioners is excessive or not? 3. To what relief? 7. While so, there was another connected M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 filed by one Thota Nancharaiah, who was injured in the same accident. The Tribunal on the memos filed in both the Petitions, clubbed both the Petitions and recorded evidence in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. So, a joint trial was conducted. One of the claimants i.e., first petitioner in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 was examined as PW.2. In both these Petitions together, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to RW.3 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by virtue of the common judgment, dealt with the contentions in M.V.O.P. Nos.297 and 286 of 2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the claimants in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. 9. 8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by virtue of the common judgment, dealt with the contentions in M.V.O.P. Nos.297 and 286 of 2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the claimants in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. 9. Feeling aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by Tribunal is not just and reasonable, the claimants filed the present Appeal. 10. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal, dated 23.07.2007, in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- against the original claim of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 11. Sri Yellabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would contend that the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and it was totally on lesser side. The Tribunal did not award proper compensation. The Tribunal failed to award the compensation under conventional heads. He would canvass a contention that the claim was laid under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act with pleading that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He would submit that in the connected M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 there were findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. So, the claim made by the claimants can also be taken as the claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. He prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lesser and the order needs interference by this Court. 12. No representation on behalf of the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. 13. Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer, would contend that the Tribunal awarded just compensation and the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.15,000/- p.a. as such the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. 14. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the nature of the claim made by the claimants. 13. Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer, would contend that the Tribunal awarded just compensation and the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.15,000/- p.a. as such the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. 14. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the nature of the claim made by the claimants. The pleadings of the petitioners in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 were that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Pertaining to the accident in question, FIR in Crime No.38 of 2005 was registered and charge sheet was also filed on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru under Ex.A-7 alleging rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, the connected claim in M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 was also pertaining to the same accident. The claimants in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 were the family members and dependants on the deceased. The claimant in M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 was the injured, who received injuries in the same accident. The Tribunal made a finding in M.V.O.P. No.286 of 2005 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. So, pertaining to the same accident, the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal was that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. So the said findings will have definite impact in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. So, it might be a typographical error in mentioning the section of law as 163(A) of the M.V. Act in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005. 15. The law is well settled that quoting a wrong provision of law cannot be a ground to decline the relief if otherwise a party is entitled to. Hence, it is appropriate to treat the claim in M.V.O.P. No.297 of 2005 as the one under fault liability. Undoubtedly, the evidence on record proved the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of offending vehicle and it is quietly evident from the evidence available on record coupled with the outcome of the investigation pertaining to the accident in question. 16. Undoubtedly, the evidence on record proved the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of offending vehicle and it is quietly evident from the evidence available on record coupled with the outcome of the investigation pertaining to the accident in question. 16. Now turning to the amount of compensation awarded under various heads, though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. and prayed to grant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- but they did not place sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. The age of the deceased, according to the post-mortem report, was 45 years. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd of it towards his personal and living expenses and proceeded to ascertain the multiplicand by applying multiplier 13. It is to be noted that the period of accident was in the year 2005. By the year 2005, a person like the deceased could easily earn Rs.50/- per day even by taking into consideration the prevailing wages of a manual labour by then. So, the reasonable income which the deceased was supposed to get is Rs.1,500/- p.m. and Rs.18,000/- per annum. The very income fixed up by the Tribunal is not on lower side. Hence, it is appropriate to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- p.a. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, AIR (2009) SC 3104, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years is 14 but the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier 13. So, the multiplicand to be arrived at is Rs.12,000/- x 14 = Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of dependnecy. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the principle therein can be applied to this Appeal also as the Appeal is pending since prior to the date of judgment therein. So, the amount of compensation to be awarded under the conventional heads i.e., for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.2,38,000/-. So, the amount of compensation to be awarded under the conventional heads i.e., for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.2,38,000/-. Under the circumstances, the order needs to be interfered with so as to enhance the compensation. 17. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,45,000/- to that of Rs.2,38,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit by directing the respondents to deposit the total compensation amount within one month from this date. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Out of Rs.2,38,000/- awarded by this Court, the first petitioner/wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,38,000/- and second and third petitioners, sons of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each respectively. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.