JUDGMENT : B.S.BHANUMATHI, J. - - This appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed against the award and decree, dated 12.07.2004, in O.P.No.1069 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Vizianagaram, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimants, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The appellants/claimants are residents of Narsipuram village.Jonnada Anandayya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners Nos.2, 3 & 4. The deceased was working as Sub-Post Master, Parvatipuram. b. On 07.06.2002, at about 10.30 pm, when the deceased came out from his house near Narsipuram to attend calls of nature, a Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No.AP 35 2640 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from Narsipuram side and dashed the deceased due to which the deceased sustained grievous injury to his head and died on the spot. After the accident, the 1st respondent, without caring the deceased drove the vehicle with high speed. The 2nd petitioner, who witnessed the accident, gave a report to Parvatipuram Rural Police who registered a case in Crime No.33 of2002 under Section 304-A IPC. c. The claimants are dependants on the earnings of the deceased. Due to his sudden death, all of them became destitute and the 1stpetitioner lost her consortium which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The claimants sought a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. - d. The respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 2640. As on the date of accident, the policy issued by the 3rd respondent was subsisting. As such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter opposing the claim and contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent and that the accident is the result of negligence and confusion of the deceased who crossed the road suddenly. The 1st respondent is well experienced in driving and well acquainted with the traffic rules. The 1st respondent had a valid driving licence which was in force till 08.06.2016. The 1st respondent is well experienced in driving and well acquainted with the traffic rules. The 1st respondent had a valid driving licence which was in force till 08.06.2016. The 1st respondent is a daily wage employee/driver in the office of the 2nd respondent, This respondent has taken all care to avoid the accident, The amount claimed under various heads is excessive and abnormal.The vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent and as such, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. b. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that the accident was caused due to the negligence and confusion of the deceased who crossed the road suddenly. The amounts claimed under various heads is excessive and abnormal.The vehicle is insured with the respondent and as such, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation, if any. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. c. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed counter contending that all the allegations in the petition are false; that the 1st respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident; that the particulars of the policy as mentioned in the petition are not true and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation; that no documentary evidence was filed to show that the deceased was working as Sub Post Master and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- and hence, the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive; and that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident is the result of contributory negligence. - 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:- i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No.AP 352640 by the 1st respondent? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? 5. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A9 were marked.On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. 6. ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? 5. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A9 were marked.On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. 6. Exhibit A1 is the true copy of FIR in Crime No.33 of 2002 of Parvatipuram (Rural) police station; exhibit A2 is the true copy of the inquest report; exhibit A3 is the true copy of post mortem certificate; exhibit A4 is the true copy of charge sheet; exhibit A5 is the true copy of M.V.I report; exhibit A6 is the two photos with negatives;exhibit A7 is the copy of pay certificate; exhibit A8 is the true copy of Service Register of the deceased; and exhibit A9 is the Last Pay Certificate of the deceased. - 7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.7,01,200/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3.The rest of the claim was dismissed. 8. The grievance of the appellants is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Since the deceased was working as a sub-post master and his gross salary was Rs.8365/- per month as on the date of his death which is established under Ex.A.9, last pay certificate, the Tribunal took the same value for the purpose of awarding loss of earnings. After the same 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards his personal expenses and the remaining amount was multiplied by ‘12’ to arrive at annual contribution to the family. The resultant amount was multiplied by ‘10’ to arrive at the total loss of earnings on account of his death. The deceased was aged 47 years.Therefore, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 the relevant multiplier for the persons aged 46 to 50 is ‘13’. Therefore, the multiplier ‘10’ adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous.Since the age of superannuation for a Central Government employee was60 years, whereas the deceased was aged 47 years, he had the possibility of earning more income in future. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 the relevant multiplier for the persons aged 46 to 50 is ‘13’. Therefore, the multiplier ‘10’ adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous.Since the age of superannuation for a Central Government employee was60 years, whereas the deceased was aged 47 years, he had the possibility of earning more income in future. As such, the future prospects shall also be included to his annual contribution. Thereby, 30%of his income shall be added towards his future prospects and then1/3rd of his income is deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the amount shall be calculated as follows: Rs.8365 X 12 = Rs.1,00,380/- - Rs. 1,00,380/-X 30/100= 30,114/- Rs. 1,00380 + 30,114 = 1,30,494/- Rs. 1,30,494 X 1/3 = 43,498/- Rs. 1,30,494 -43,498 = Rs.86,996/- Rs. 86,996 X 13 = 11,30,948/- 9. There is a calculation error made by the Tribunal by omitting Rs.2,000/- in the total amount payable as per its calculation.The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,69,200/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, Thus, the total amount is Rs.7,03,200/-, however Rs.7,01,200/- only was awarded. 10. Since the rest of the amounts awarded under different heads are adequate, the said amount need not be increased, but the petitioners No.2 to 4 are further entitled to loss of love, support and affection.Therefore, all of them are entitled to Rs.2,000/- each, in addition to loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.11,30,948/- jointly and severally to the appellants/claimants with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed.