JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against the award dated 13th June, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 823 of 1998 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the insurance company has come up with present appeal. 3. It appears from the record that on 16th March, 1998 while the victim was travelling on his own Suzuki motorcycle being GJ -3Q -5782, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-13 -T- 5937 came from behind and dashed with the rater portion of the motorcycle, resulting in death of the victim. 4. According to the claimants, the victim used to earn Rs.5000/- a month by doing diamond polishing work as well as agricultural work and prayed for awarding a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. 5. The Tribunal below on consideration of material on record came to the conclusion that there was absolute negligence on the part of the truck and thus, the claimants were entitled to get compensation. Regarding income of the victim, the Tribunal held, in the facts of the present case, monthly income of the victim should be treated to be Rs.3000/- a month. The Tribunal deducted ?th of that amount towards personal expenditure of the victim and by treating the age of the victim to be 37 years decided to apply multiplier of 16. Thus, according to the Tribunal, treating the income of the victim to be Rs.3000/-, a sum of Rs.1500/- should be added and consequently, the figure comes to Rs.4500/- and thereafter, ?i.e. Rs.750/- should be deducted and the total amount comes to Rs.3750/- and applying multiplier of 16 after converting it into annual income, the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.7,20,000/- under the head of dependency. In addition to that, the Tribunal added a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as consortium to wife and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, therefore, total amount came to Rs.8,30,000/-. 6. In addition to that, the Tribunal added a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as consortium to wife and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, therefore, total amount came to Rs.8,30,000/-. 6. After hearing learned advocates for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record, I propose to follow the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Anjani Singh and others v. Salauddin and others, reported in 2014 ACJ 1565 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration earlier decisions in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, [ 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)], Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, [ 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)]. 7. Therefore, treating the income to be Rs.3500/- and adding 50% to the same, the figure comes to Rs.4500/- and ?th namely Rs.900/- should be deducted thereby to arrive at a figure of Rs.3600/-. Thereafter, converting it to annual figure by multiplying it by 12 and thereafter, applying multiplier of 15, the total amount will be Rs.6,48,000/-. Rs.1,00,000/- should be added as consortium and Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenditure. Thus, the total amount should be Rs.7,58,000/-. 8. The claimants should be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till deposit of the amount by the insurance company. 9. I, therefore, modify the award impugned and reduce to Rs.7,58,000/- instead of Rs.8,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. I am quite conscious that in the claim application, the claimants claimed Rs.7,00,000/-. Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 and subsequently relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ibrahim v. Raju" And others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 , if it appears to the Court that while dealing with the application under the M.V. Act, the amount of just compensation available on the basis of the material on record is more than one claimed in the original application, then it is the duty of the Court dealing with such application to award just compensation. 10. 10. Following observations are made by the Supreme Court in the recent decision of "Ibrahim v. Raju" and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 :- "21.We are conscious of the fact that in the petition filed by him, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs only with interest and costs. It will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity the appellant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer and make a claim for adequate compensation. However, as the Tribunal and the High Court and for that reason this Court are duty bound to award just compensation, we deem it proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,440 to Rs.6 lakhs. This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh. In that case, the Court considered a similar issue, referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire, Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana and observed: (Nagappa case, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , p.282, para 21) "21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit the amendment to the claim petition." 11. Similar view is also taken in the case of "Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar" and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 665 where at paragraph 18, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "18. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit the amendment to the claim petition." 11. Similar view is also taken in the case of "Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar" and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 665 where at paragraph 18, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "18. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident." 12. The respondent claimant, however, should pay additional court fees on the enhanced amount within fortnight from today. 13. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount because all the claimants have become major and the additional amount be refunded to the insurance company with accrued interest thereon. 14. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of disposal of the appeal, connected Civil Application has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.