JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the Award, dated 26.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.200 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The Appellants are petitioners/claimants and Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are owner and driver of the crime vehicle. The Respondent No.2 is insurer. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i).On 11.06.2005, one V. Narayanaswamy Naidu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’), who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, started from his village Akkammacheruvupalli to go to Chukkavaripalle to attend the death ceremony of his friend and on the way he went to Gundlapalle to pick up his friend K. Mahadevapillai and at about 8-30 to 9-00 A.M., the deceased started from Gundlapalle Village with his friend as pillion rider and when they reached near Chittoor-Piler Road junction, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 5922, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction to the motorcycle of the deceased and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased and pillion rider Mahadevapillai fell down on the margin of the road and the wheels of the lorry ran over the deceased, causing crush injury to his head, in result, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. ii) A case came to be registered in Crime No.43 of 2005 against the driver of the crime vehicle and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.202 of 2005 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. iii) On the death of the deceased in a road accident, the claim petition is filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the petition averments and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he suddenly turned his motorcycle on to the middle of the road and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The deceased is not possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. The deceased is not possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. Though two vehicles are involved in the accident, the petitioners wantonly not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motorcycle and as such petition is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties. The claim of petitioners is excessive. 6. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement denying the petition averments and stated in the lines of Respondent No.2 that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident as he suddenly crossed the road without observing the vehicular traffic. It is further stated that the deceased is not having valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. 7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP26 T 5922 or due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No.AP03 P 2659 by the deceased or both? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 4. To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs1to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 aremarked. The respondents 2 and 3 have not adduced any oral evidence before the Tribunal but got marked Ex.B1 by consent. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.3,16,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Claim of the petitioners against Respondent No.1 is dismissed. 10. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 11. Petition against Respondent Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed for default. 12. Heard Sri V. Muni Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt A. Jayanthi, learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.2. 13. 10. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 11. Petition against Respondent Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed for default. 12. Heard Sri V. Muni Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt A. Jayanthi, learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.2. 13. Sri V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal failed to follow the principles of law governing in awarding compensation in motor accidents cases. The deceased was a graduate and worked as Surpanch of Gundlapalle Village during the years 1988 to 1993 and that he own seven acres of land as well as mango garden. He is also correspondent of BSRT Sanskrit High School. The deceased is doing mango business and earning Rs.2 lakhs per annum. The Tribunal erred in applying the lesser multiplier and deducting 1/3 of the annual income which is contrary to Sarala Verma decision. His further submission is that even though appeal against the driver and owner is dismissed for default, the question of statutory liability of the Insurance Company survives for consideration. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 14. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that due to the negligence of the deceased itself, the accident occurred. The deceased is also not possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. There is no proper proof showing the income of the deceased. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are not impleaded in the petition and petition is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants? and 2. To what relief? 16. POINT No.1: In any claim of motor accident cases, the initial burden is upon the petitioners/claimants to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. 17. Whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants? and 2. To what relief? 16. POINT No.1: In any claim of motor accident cases, the initial burden is upon the petitioners/claimants to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. 17. It is the specific contention of the claimants that when the deceased along with one Mahadevapillai as pillion rider were proceeding to Chukkavaripalle and when they reached near Chittor-Piler road junction, at about 9 a.m., a lorry bearing No.AP26 t 5922 belonging to 3rd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, due to which, both the deceased and Mahadevapilli fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased received head injury and died on the sport. 18. To prove the accident, the wife of the deceased who is 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW2. They have also filed Ex.A1 to A11. In support of their case, they also examined one V. Chengalraya Naidu, Retired Principal as PW3. 19. PW1, wife of the deceased, deposed about the accident. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident and her role is nothing to decide on whose negligence the accident occurred. PW2 is the eyewitness to the accident. According to PW2, when the motorcycle of the deceased came to the western portion of the road, the crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and came towards right margin of the road and hit the motorcycle. Ex.A1 is copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is copy of charge sheet and Ex.A3 is postmortem certificate. 20. Though the learned counsel for respondents contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but no evidence has been led to prove the same. The insurance company failed to examine any witness and failed to elicit anything contra from PW2 during crossexamination. In the absence of any evidence much less convincing evidence to disprove the accident and negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any evidence much less convincing evidence to disprove the accident and negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The tribunal, on the analysis of the entire evidence, rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 21. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it is settled law that, three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death (1) Age of the deceased (2) Income of the deceased and; (3) Number of dependents. Once these facts are determined, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 has prescribed a structured method of calculation as below: "To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death by following well-settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency" to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate, Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate, Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added." 22. In the present case, the Tribunal after taking into consideration of age of the petitioners and graduation certificate of deceased felt that the deceased must be aged around 54 years as on the date of death and the same is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the age of the deceased is taken as 54 years. 23. As regards the dependents, petition has been filed by four petitioners i.e., wife and three children. Hence, the dependents are taken as four persons. 24. As regards the income, the petitioners examined one Chengalraya Naidu as PW3 who deposed that deceased was Sarpanch of their village and earning more than Rs.2 lakhs per annum from agriculture and business. He further deposed that deceased used to do mango business and also contract works. But, during his cross-examination, he deposed that he has no record with him for the income of the deceased. Admittedly, as reasoned by the tribunal, the petitioners have not produced any income tax returns, or other documents to support the income as pleaded in the petition. PW1 also admitted that she is getting income on the lands and mango garden. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has rightly fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month.Now, out of the said monthly income of Rs.8000/-, as there are fourdependents, in terms of Sarla Verma's Case (supra) , 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal living expenses. Then the amount comes to Rs.6000/- [Rs.8000 – 2000 (8000 x 1/4)]. In National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed adding of certain percentage of income towards future prospects of the deceased. Then the amount comes to Rs.6000/- [Rs.8000 – 2000 (8000 x 1/4)]. In National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed adding of certain percentage of income towards future prospects of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was treated as a self employed and between the age group of 50 to 60 years, as such, an addition of10% is made to the income of the deceased, then the amount comes to Rs.6,600/- [Rs.6000 + 600]. If this monthly income is multiplied by 12 months, then the annual income comes to Rs.79,200/- [Rs.6,600 x 12]. Since the age of the deceased is 54 years, the multiplier applicable to him is ‘11’ and if the multiplicand is multiplied with the fixed multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.8,71,200 [Rs.79,200 x 11]. To this amount, as per the Pranay Sethi’s decision (supra) , an amount of Rs.15,000/- is allowed towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Then, the total amount comes to Rs.9,41,200/ [Rs.8,71,200 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/-]. 25. As the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 5922 is covered by an insurance policy marked under Ex.B1, which indemnify the vehicle owner, driver and third party in accident claim, which was admittedly in force by the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly holds that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 arejointly and severally liable to pay the above awarded compensation to the petitioners. The petition against respondent No.1 is dismissed by the tribunal since he is now way connected with the crime. 26. The petition against respondent No.1 is dismissed by the tribunal since he is now way connected with the crime. 26. Now, coming to question of statutory liability of the Insurance Company, since appeal against Respondent Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed for default, vide conditional order, dated 24.03.2015 , the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others [ 2001 (1) ALD 453 (DB)], wherein it was held as follows: “12.The statutory liability of the Insurance Company, in the absence of the owner of the vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in the case of The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harijana Babakka and others, 1992 (2) ALT 155 , for fixing the statutory liability and the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary…..” “13. ….. even if the appeal is dismissed against the owner of the vehicle, the question of statutory liability of the Insurance Company survives for consideration and there is no need for the presence of the owner of the vehicle to decide the question of statutory liability of the Insurance Company at the appellate stage in the case wherever the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident has taken place due to the rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle and if the said finding is not challenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company.” 27. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statutory liability of the Respondent No.2 survives for consideration. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,16,800/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) to Rs.9,41,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty-One Thousand Two Hundred), with interest @ 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents Nos.1 to 3. The Respondent No.2/Insurer is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Respondent No.2/Insurer is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.6,41,200/- (Rupees Six Lakhs forty-one thousand two hundred) and the petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each and they are permitted to withdraw the same. The tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid.