MOTILAL B. NAIK, J, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS herein are the claimants in O. P. No. 759 of 1992 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional district Court, Karimnagar. ( 2 ) THE appellants instituted a claim petition in O. P. No. 759 of 1992 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of Ch. Bhumaiah in a motor accident, which took place on 7. 10. 1991. The 1st appellant is the wife, appellants 2 to 4 are the minor children and appellants 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellants, the deceased Bhumaiah was working as head master in Upper Primary School, Peddapur village of Jammikunta Mandal and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,400/- per month. On 7. 10. 1991 at 6 P. M the deceased bhumaiah was returning from Karimnager on his scooter along with one Guram ram Ready as a pillion rider. It was dark night and there was slight drizzling. The deceased could not notice the stationed lorry bearing APJ 8600, which was parked on wrong side without taking any precautions, and hit the said lorry from behind, as a result he sustained serious injuries on his head. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar. From there, he was referred to Nizam hospital at Hyderabad, where he underwent two operations on 8. 10. 1991 and 24. 10. 1991. He was discharged on 2. 1. 1991, but due to further complications he was immediately shifted to Nizam Hospital. On 26. 12. 1991 bhumaiah died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on7. 10. 1991. ( 4 ) AS a result of the death of bhumaiah, who was the sole bread winner of the family, the appellants herein made a claim before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. ( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent-Insurance company opposed the claim petition denying the liability as well the allegation that the lorry in question was parked on wrong side of the road. The driver and owner of the offending lorry in question remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In order to substantiate their claim, the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1. The driver and owner of the offending lorry in question remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In order to substantiate their claim, the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1. PW2 was the pillion rider of the scooter, which was driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. On behalf of the claimants Exs. A. 1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd Respondent-Insurance Company, none was examined, however Ex. B. 1 insurance policy was marked. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , considered the claim of the claimants and came to a conclusion that the monthly contribution by the deceased to the family was Rs. 6,000/ -. The Tribunal while applying 12 multiplier, as the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of his death, opined that the compensation to be paid to the claimants is Rs. 8,64,000/- (Rs. 6,000xl2xl2 ). The Tribunal also opined that an amount of rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal having found that an amount of Rs. 12,741/- was incurred towards medical expenditure also awarded the same. Thus the Tribunal opined that the compensation to be paid to the claimants in all is rs. 8,91,741/ -. However, the Tribunal held that as the claimants had restricted their claim to Rs. 2,00,000/-, they are entitled to a compensation of only Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Holding so, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in all towards compensation with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, by award dated 18. 4. 1995. It is this award, which is assailed by the claimants in the present appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard Sri H. Srinivasa rao, learned Counsel for the appellants and sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the contesting 3rd Respondent-Insurance company. 4. 1995. It is this award, which is assailed by the claimants in the present appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard Sri H. Srinivasa rao, learned Counsel for the appellants and sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the contesting 3rd Respondent-Insurance company. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the provision made under Section 168 of the M. V. Act, 1988 empowers the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation without regard to the claim made by the claimants, and as such, when the Tribunal has determined just and reasonable compensation that is payable to the claimants at Rs. 8,91,741/-, the Tribunal could not have restricted the award to only rs. 2,00,000/- on the ground that the claimants had claimed only Rs. 2,00,000/- he relied on a single Judge s (Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J.) decision of this Court in New India assurance Company Ltd. v. G. Lakshmi, 1995 (1) ALD 299 and stated that in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the said case, without regard to the claim made by the claimants, the obligation is on the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation. The learned Counsel contended that in the Old Act, the relevant provision for determination of compensation is Section 110-B. According to the Counsel, a similar provision is also made in the new Act without there being any change, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal extending the benefit of the above decision (supra ). He also stated that as a precautionary measure the claimants have filed an application in CMP No. 14244 of 1995 seeking to amend the prayer and pleaded to grant just and reasonable compensation to the claimants-appellants ( 9 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance company Sri Kota Subba Rao, submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper in the sense that even if the ratio laid down by the supreme Court (supra) is relied, the courts have to take into consideration several factors in awarding just and reasonable compensation. ( 10 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, the point for consideration is: what is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellants? ( 10 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, the point for consideration is: what is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellants? ( 11 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased, who died in a motor accident on 7. 10. 1991 and about the income of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased, who was aged about 38 yeas at the time of his death, being head-master of a school, was earning a salary of Rs. 3,400/- per month. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a learned Division bench of this Court, in which one of us (Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J.) is a Member, in cma No. 2058 of 1992, dated 12. 6. 2001, and stated the Division Bench following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision (supra), awarded reasonable compensation considering the future prospects also. ( 12 ) IN the above judgment it was held by this Court that future prospects of the deceased has also to be considered as one of the criterion for awarding just and reasonable compensation, keeping in view the principle laid down in the decision cited (supra ). In CMA No. 2058 of 1992, it was elaborately discussed about the uncertainties of life and the Division Bench held that some guess work has to be done having regard to the age of the deceased, his qualifications in a particular specialized field and the position held by him at the time of his death, while determining the loss of earnings. ( 13 ) FOLLOWING the said view, if we take into consideration the age of the deceased being 38 years, and his status as head master in an Upper Primary School, some guess work has to be done in this case also. For determining compensation towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal had applied multiplier 12. In the set of circumstances, having regard to the discussion made above and the age and earning capacity of the deceased, we are of the view that the relevant multiplier for the purpose of determining the loss of earnings in this case could be 15. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that while determining loss of earnings, certain amounts are to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that while determining loss of earnings, certain amounts are to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was earning rs. 3,400/- per month. Though Courts have held that one third could be just and reasonable amount to be deducted from the salary or income, which is being derived by the deceased at the time of his death, it is well settled that in case where there is evidence to show that the deceased was spending certain amount, the general principle that one-third deduction has to be made, need not be adhered to depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As indicated above, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,400/- per month. The 1st claimant, who was examined as PW1, deposed before the Tribunal that her husband used to contribute his entire salary of rs. 3,400/- per month for the welfare of the family. If that be so, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family is rs. 3,400/- per month, which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the compensation towards loss of earnings. ( 15 ) SINCE the deceased was an head- master and better placed in the society, though the place of work is a small village, we are of the view that at least an amount of rs. 400/- per month towards his personal expenditure has to be deducted. Therefore, we deduct an amount of Rs. 400/- from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure. Thus the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs. 3,000/ -. ( 16 ) TAKING the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs. 3,000/- the compensation towards loss of earnings has to be determined in the following manner. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 36,000/ -. By applying relevant multiplier 15 as discussed by us above, the loss of earnings would be Rs. 36,000/- x 15 = Rs. 5,40,000/ -. That apart, the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and also an amount of Rs. 12,741/- incurred towards medical expenditure. Thus in all the appellants are entitled for Rs. 5,40,000/ -. That apart, the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and also an amount of Rs. 12,741/- incurred towards medical expenditure. Thus in all the appellants are entitled for Rs. 5,82,741/- towards compensation on all counts. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the above compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. ( 17 ) THE other relevant question, which is to be answered by this Court is: whether the appellants are entitled for the compensation determined by us as indicated above? ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance company, since the claimants have restricted their claim to only Rs. 2 lakhs, the tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 2 lakhs to the claimants towards compensation, though the Tribunal had determined the compensation to be payable to the claimants was Rs. 8,91,741/ -. The issue with regard to the granting just and appropriate compensation fell for consideration before this Court in the decision (supra ). In that case similar argument was advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance Company contending that when the claimants have restricted their claim of compensation to a particular sum, even if the Court is competent to award just and reasonable compensation, such compensation cannot be granted. Examining that aspect, this Court in the decision (supra) while referring to Section 110-B of the M. V. Act (Old Act) held that when the Legislature empowers the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation, it would not be appropriate on the part of the Courts to deny the entitlement on the ground that the claimants have restricted their claim to a particular sum. In the case on hand, the claimants made their claim under Section 168 of the Act, 1988. The provisions appear in section 168 of the New Act are in part materia to the provisions in Section 110-B of the Old Act. Section 168 of Act, 1988 reads as under : "s. /68: Award of the Claims Tribunal. In the case on hand, the claimants made their claim under Section 168 of the Act, 1988. The provisions appear in section 168 of the New Act are in part materia to the provisions in Section 110-B of the Old Act. Section 168 of Act, 1988 reads as under : "s. /68: Award of the Claims Tribunal. (1) on receiptof an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall after giving notice of the application to the Insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162, may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them as the case may be; provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. " ( 19 ) BY reading the provisions of section 168, which corresponds to section 110-B of 1939 Act, it would appear to us that the provisions under Section 110-B of the Old Act are incorporated in verbatim in Section 168 of the New Act of 1988. Section 110-B of the Old Act, 1939 was considered by this Court in the decision (supra) wherein this Court held that when the Legislature empowers the Tribunal to grant just and reasonable compensation without regard to the claim made by the claimants, the Tribunals shall be competent to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. We must also say that, this enactment, being a beneficial legislation, the statement and objects of the same have to be borne in mind by the Courts while determining the compensation which shall be just and reasonable. We must also say that, this enactment, being a beneficial legislation, the statement and objects of the same have to be borne in mind by the Courts while determining the compensation which shall be just and reasonable. Having regard to the discussion, we are of the view that, without regard to the restricted claim made by the claimants, the claimants shall be entitled for the sums as indicated above by us under various heads. Having taken this view, we set aside the award dated 18. 4. 1995 made by the Tribunal in O. P. No. 759 of 1992 and hold that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,82,741/- in all, as determined by us above which is just and reasonable. ( 20 ) IMMEDIATELY after dictating this order, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company stated that the appellants-claimants may be directed to pay necessary Court fee on the amount of compensation claimed by them. Since the appellants filed a petition in C. M. P. No. 14244 of 1995 seeking to amend the prayer with regard to enhancement of compensation, which is allowed by this court today, they shall pay necessary Court fee on the basis of the compensation claimed by them. The 3rd Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation determined by us along with interest within a period of three months from today. ( 21 ) SINCE we have determined compensation to be paid to the claimants, the following apportionment is made. ( 22 ) THE 1st claimant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The remaining compensation of rs. 5,67,741/- shall be shared by all the claimants. Claimants 5 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 75,000/- each with interest accrued on their share and they shall be entitled to withdraw the same. Claimants 1 to 4 shall be entitled to receive the remaining compensation amount i. e. , rs. 4,17,741/- equally. . ( 23 ) HAVING regard to the date of accident and having regard to the fact that the Tribunal made the award on 1 and. 4. 1995. We permit, the 1st claimant to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest that fell to her share. 4,17,741/- equally. . ( 23 ) HAVING regard to the date of accident and having regard to the fact that the Tribunal made the award on 1 and. 4. 1995. We permit, the 1st claimant to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest that fell to her share. With regard to the compensation awarded to claimants 2 and 3, who were the minor children of the deceased at the time of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal, it is stated that they have attained majority. If that be so they shall be entitled to withdraw, 50% of the compensation awarded to their shares and the remaining 50% of the compensation amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years. The compensation awarded to the 4th claimant, who is a minor, shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till she attains majority. The 1st claimant, however, shall be at liberty to move the Claims tribunal for withdrawal of any amount from the compensation amount deposited in the name of the 4th claimant by filing necessary application. If any such application is filed, the Claims Tribunal shall dispose of the same considering the circumstances explained in the petition. The first claimant is entitled to withdraw periodical interest once in six months on the share of the 4th claimant for meeting the educational expenses etc. ( 24 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.