ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the Decree and Judgment dated 12.10.2007 passed in MVOP No. 983 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), East Godavari District at Amalapuram, (for short 'the tribunal'). 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant -insurance company are that the respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of Chelluri Bhaskara Rao in a motor accident against the appellant and others. On the fateful day i.e., on 05.10.2005, the deceased was engaged as a labourer to load and unload coconuts on tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 5AL 3551 and AP 5 V 7404, and in the return trip, the deceased boarded the tractor and trailer. The first respondent drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the deceased fell down from the tractor trailer on the road and trailer wheels ran over him causing crush injuries and while he was undergoing treatment in Care Hospital, Amalapuram, he succumbed to the injuries. The wife and children of the deceased (petitioners 1 to 4 in the OP) claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. The 3rd respondent requested the claim. 4. The tribunal on consideration of the evidence of both oral and documentary available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 to 3. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contends that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who sat on the iron bar link between the tractor and trailer, but even then, the tribunal held that the driver of the tractor was negligent. 8. At the outset this is a case of death due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. 8. At the outset this is a case of death due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. The insurance company has taken a plea of contributory negligence. The negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailer is proved by the evidence of P.W. 2. The tribunal has taken a view that the driver of the tractor ought to have taken precaution while driving the vehicle having allowed the deceased to sit on the tractor. 9. The tribunal has considered the evidence of the eye witness, who stated that the tractor moved while the deceased was placing leaves on the tractor. The findings of the tribunal are that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the tribunal in respect of rash and negligent act. The other contention of the insurance company is that the authority under workmen compensation Act has the jurisdiction to try this case arid the tribunal has no jurisdiction as the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling on tractor out of his employment. CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No. 34538 of 2008 10. The petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 have filed cross-objections seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 contends that the tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs. 2,500/- per month and ought to have deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses. He further submits that since the age of the deceased was 40 years by the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) : would be 15, whereas the tribunal has taken the multiplier 13. On these grounds, the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. This court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners. The deceased was aged about 40 years by the date of accident and had four dependants on him. On these grounds, the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. This court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners. The deceased was aged about 40 years by the date of accident and had four dependants on him. In the light of the decision in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others AIR 2001 SC 3218 the notional income of the labourer working in an unorganized sector can be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month and the appropriate multiplier is 15 in this case. 13. In the instant case, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/4th towards his personal expense, the income comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 15. The total compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,05,000/- (Rs. 27,000 x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000/-). 14. The tribunal did not grant any amount under the conventional heads. As per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) : 2017 (2) An.W.R. 529 (SC) : 2017(3) GLH 536 the respondents/petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 15. Total compensation awarded under all heads is as follows: S. No. Heads of injury Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by the Court 1. Compensation 2,80,000.00 4,05,000.00 2. Loss of consortium - 40,000.00 3. Loss of estate - 15,000.00 4. Funeral expenses - 15,000.00 Total 2,80,000.00 4,75,000.00 CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No. 34538 of 2008 16. In the result, the cross-objections filed by the respondents 1 to 4 is allowed, enhancing compensation from Rs. 2,80,000/- to Rs. 4,75,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance compensation amount before the tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are directed to withdraw the same without furnishing any security as per their share fixed by the tribunal. The respondents are directed to pay the court fee over and above the compensation. On such deposit, the claimants are directed to withdraw the same without furnishing any security as per their share fixed by the tribunal. The respondents are directed to pay the court fee over and above the compensation. MACMA No. 744 of 2008: 17. In view of the fact that the cross-objections filed by the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 is allowed and enhanced the compensation, this appeal filed by the Insurance company shall stand dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.