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 29.09.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2009 (M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2009). 2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni the learned counsel for appellants. Though appearance was made for respondents, none appeared to argue for them. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: On 09.10.2007 Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-7-AF- 2555 was proceeding from Hyderabad to Macherla along with its inmates and at about 9:20 P.M. near about Yacharam the driver of the car drove the car rashly or negligently and dashed on the back side of a proclainer that was going ahead of it. Because of this collision one of the inmates of the car Sri L.Srinivasa Rao died on the spot. Crime No.118 of 2007 was registered by police/Exs.A.1 and A.4 - F.I.R and after due investigation a charge sheet was laid/Ex.A.8 against the driver of the offending Indica Car. The dead body was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.2 and was subjected to autopsy/Ex.A.3. The offending Indica Car was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who gave his report/Ex.A.7 indicating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the car. The wife, children and father of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2009 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. The owner of the offending Indica Car was shown as respondent No.1 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited which allegedly insured the vehicle was shown as respondent No.2. The owner filed a counter attributing negligence on the part of the proclainer and further stated that he validly insured his vehicle and therefore he may be exonerated from liability. The insurance company filed its counter alleging that the driver of the offending Indica Car did not possess valid driving licence and the inmates of the car being gratuitous passengers were not covered by the insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-7-AF-2555? 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-7-AF-2555? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. Wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 and another inmate of the car who survived the accident testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were exhibited. On behalf of the insurance company, one of its officers testified as RW.1 and a Junior Assistant of R.T.A. office testified as RW.2 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were exhibited. 6. Claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereunder the claimants were not required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligent or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. However, the Claims Tribunal made an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record and reached to the conclusion that the death was out of rash or negligent driving on part of driver of offending Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-7-AF-2555. After considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and the evidence of Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 it concluded that on the date of the accident there was valid and effective insurance policy and the driver of the offending car had necessary driving licence. It considered the age of the deceased as 37 years and multiplier ‘13’ was applied. Coming to the multiplicand, the evidence placed before the Claims Tribunal was that the deceased was a cashier in Kalyani Bar and Restaurant earning a monthly salary of Rs.3,722/- and perks to a tune of Rs.50/- per day and the claimants stated that the annual income was Rs.53,664/- and stated that since they made the claim under Section 163A where structural formula was to be applied, they restricted the annual income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- per annum. On the premise that no documents were produced disclosing the alleged salary income and perks of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal recorded that it would consider the income notionally. Having said so, it was expected on part of the Claims Tribunal to mention what was the notional income. It omitted to do so. On the premise that no documents were produced disclosing the alleged salary income and perks of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal recorded that it would consider the income notionally. Having said so, it was expected on part of the Claims Tribunal to mention what was the notional income. It omitted to do so. However, it stated that the loss of dependency occurred because of death was estimated at Rs.20,000/- per year. On applying multiplier ‘13’, the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.2,60,000/-. It granted Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-was granted. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy thousand only) with subsequent interest at 6% P.A. on the said sum from the date of this petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs as follows: i) The respondent nos.1 & 2 liable to pay the said amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs as ordered and further directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this award. Rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. ii) The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-” 7. Assailing the inadequacy of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in not considering Rs.40,000/- per annum as the income of the deceased and incorrectly applied multiplier ‘13’ instead of multiplier ‘15’ and committed error in granting only 6% interest per annum instead of granting 12% interest per annum. 8. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award suffers from factual or legal errors requiring interference?” POINT 9. The deceased was found to be aged 37 years. For such age group in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 their Lordships held that multiplier ‘15’ shall be applied. However, the Claims Tribunal applied multiplier ‘13’ and therefore committed a legal error. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the averments made in the charge sheet/Ex.A.8 do indicate that the deceased was a cashier in Kalyani Bar and Restaurant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 indicated the annual income of the deceased at Rs.53,664/-. However, the Claims Tribunal applied multiplier ‘13’ and therefore committed a legal error. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the averments made in the charge sheet/Ex.A.8 do indicate that the deceased was a cashier in Kalyani Bar and Restaurant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 indicated the annual income of the deceased at Rs.53,664/-. As noticed earlier, the Claims Tribunal did not record any findings as to what the annual income of the deceased was. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellants that the annual income should be taken as Rs.40,000/- in terms of Section 163A read with second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be accepted. 11. The deceased survived by four dependents. In Sarla Verma ’ s case (supra) their Lordships held that where the dependents are numbering 4 to 6 1/4 th of the income should be deducted towards possible personal expenses. The award of the Claims Tribunal states that it had deducted but it did not specify in what ratio it made such deduction. That is also a legal error. The annual income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.40,000/-. 1/4 th of it is deducted towards his possible personal living expenses. Thus, the net annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-. Multiplier ‘15’ is applied and the amount arrived at is Rs.4,50,000/-. The Claims Tribunal also granted a total of Rs.10,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.4,60,000/-. However, the claim was made only Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore, as prayed by the claimants it is ordered that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. 12. Coming to the rate of interest, paragraph No.14 of the award of the Claims Tribunal reads as below: “Petitioners have filed M.V.O.P.39/07 and the same was dismissed for default on 11.11.08. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no prohibition to file another petition claiming compensation 2 nd respondent also did not submit any authority that the petitioners are not entitled to file another petition when the earlier petition was dismissed for default. As the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the case, I am of the opinion that they are entitled interest only at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition.” 13. As the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the case, I am of the opinion that they are entitled interest only at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition.” 13. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants failed to overcome what was held by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need for revision of the rate of interest that was granted by the Claims Tribunal. The point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 29.09.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2009 (M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2009) from Rs.2,70,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company 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.