JUDGMENT : (V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.) Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 28.02.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1088 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Charla Israil was riding his bicycle on the left side of the road margin at 7:00 p.m. on 28.06.1996. From the opposite direction the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP-9Z- 6739 came at high speed and its driver was rash or negligent in driving it and dashed the cyclist leading to his spot death. At Gudlavalleru Police Station Crime No.51 of 1996 was registered as per Ex.A.1-F.I.R. After due investigation police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus as per Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The Motor Vehicles Inspector certified that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect as seen from Ex.A.5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3 and was subjected to autopsy as per Ex.A.4. Children of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1088 of 2010 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed its written statement denying the correctness of the narration of facts contained in the claim petition. It was further stated that as the cyclist was riding the bicycle in a zig-zag manner the negligence was on his part and not on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. It further stated that it paid Rs.50,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased towards full and final settlement and acknowledging the same they gave indemnity bond and discharge voucher. It was for those reasons it prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9Z-6739? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. It was for those reasons it prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9Z-6739? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimants, there was evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and on behalf of the sole respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. there was evidence of RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4. 6. The learned Chairman, Claims Tribunal recorded that the claim being one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants were not obliged to plead and prove rashness or negligence. However, since the evidence was adduced it considered the evidence led on both sides and concluded that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. 7. The deceased was found aged 54 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.900/-. 1/3 rd of it was deducted towards his possible personal and living expenses and the net income was arrived at Rs.600/- and the annual income was Rs.7,200/-. On applying multiplier ‘11’ to the multiplicand it found Rs.79,200/- and granted the same as compensation towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/- and towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- were granted. Thus, total compensation of Rs.91,200/- was granted. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 is allowed with proportionate costs and an Award is passed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 for Rs. 91,200/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousands and Two Hundred Only) against the respondent-RTC Corpn., together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The respondent is directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to the equal shares, and they are permitted to withdraw the award amount after deducting Rs.50,000/- already paid by the respondent-RTC Corporation. The award is subject to any amount already paid u/s. 140 of M.V Act and also subject to payment of deficit Court Fee if any payable. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).” 8. The award is subject to any amount already paid u/s. 140 of M.V Act and also subject to payment of deficit Court Fee if any payable. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the notional income should have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, but the Claims Tribunal committed an error in considering it as Rs.900/-. Interest awarded being 7.5% per annum is very low and it ought to have granted 12% interest per annum. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the Claims Tribunal rightly considered the facts and law and just compensation was awarded, and no interference is called for. 10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is : “Whether the impugned award failed to grant just compensation thereby requiring interference?” POINT 11. The evidence of PW.1 was that his father was a lorry driver earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal stated at paragraph No.16 of the impugned award that an unskilled labour at the relevant period was earning Rs.30/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income was assessed at Rs.900/-. It is that which is assailed here. The observations of the Claims Tribunal cannot be supported. It remained undisputed that the deceased was a lorry driver. That shows that he was a skilled performer. Equating him with an unskilled labour is unjustified. While the claimants could have examined the owner of the lorry or others who used to pay remuneration to the deceased, but they failed to do so and failed to offer any reason for it. Therefore, from facts that are available on record this Court holds that the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.2,100/-. Dependents are two in number. Therefore, 1/3 rd has to be deducted towards possible personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, net income comes to Rs.1,400/- per month. Per year it comes to Rs.16,800/-. Multiplier ‘11’ is appropriate in terms of ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] . Thus, Rs.1,84,800/- arrived at towards loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. If they are added to Rs.1,84,800/- it comes to Rs.1,96,800/-. The Claims Tribunal had granted Rs.91,200/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.1,05,600/- is granted. 12. Thus, Rs.1,84,800/- arrived at towards loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. If they are added to Rs.1,84,800/- it comes to Rs.1,96,800/-. The Claims Tribunal had granted Rs.91,200/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.1,05,600/- is granted. 12. After discussing the evidence on both sides and the rival submissions, the learned Claims Tribunal held that it was admitted on both sides that Rs.50,000/- was paid by A.P.S.R.T.C. to the claimants towards the death of the father of the claimants. Therefore, the claim to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- alone survived. That part of the award is not disputed here. Therefore, nothing more needs to be stated. 13. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly granting an additional amount of Rs.1,05,600/-. 14. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 28.02.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1088 of 2010 from Rs.91,200/- to Rs.1,96,800/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their entitlement mentioned in the award of the Claims Tribunal along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.