JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Claimants in MOP No. 390 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity), are the appellants in the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Claimant No. 1 is the husband, claimant No. 2 is the daughter and claimant No. 3 is the mother-in-law, of the deceased Smt. P. Nagamani. In a motor accident that occurred on 21.08.2010, the deceased lost her life. The claimants filed the above said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, vide the order dated 22.03.2013, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,24,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, with proportionate costs and interest. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present appeal has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal grossly erred in not granting compensation as claimed by the claimants. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that the Tribunal ought to have assessed notional income of the deceased as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2010 (6) ALD 123 (SC) : (2010) 9 SCC 218 and Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 (2) ALD 133 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 735 and ought to have granted compensation accordingly. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-insurance company that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal correctly assessed the quantum of compensation and granted the same, and no interference of this Court is necessary. 5. In the above back ground, now, the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is: Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal? 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings available, settled the following issues for trial: “(1) Whether the deceased viz. Pinapala Nagamam W/o Ramu died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing Regn. No. AP31Y 7699 (bus) driver by its driver? 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings available, settled the following issues for trial: “(1) Whether the deceased viz. Pinapala Nagamam W/o Ramu died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing Regn. No. AP31Y 7699 (bus) driver by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief?” On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked, and on behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, but Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- and yearly income at Rs. 18,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, assessed her contribution to her family at Rs. 12,000/- per annum, and by applying multiplier ‘17’ granted Rs. 2,04,000/- towards compensation for loss of dependency. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing labour works and household duties and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the claimants, income of the deceased can be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month i.e., Rs. 48,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, her contribution to her family comes to Rs. 32,000/- per annum, and by applying multiplier ‘17’ the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,44,000/- (Rs. 32,000/- x 17). Accordingly, the appellants are awarded a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- towards loss of dependency. 8. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. The learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC), wherein it is held as follows: “Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation granted towards loss of consortium from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation granted towards loss of consortium from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and loss of estate from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- besides granting Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants from Rs. 2,24,000/- to Rs. 6,14,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned as follows: (a) 1st appellant/1st claimant (husband) Rs. 1,50,000/- (b) 2nd appellant/2nd claimant (daughter) Rs. 3,14,000/- (c) 3rd appellant/3rd claimant (mother-in-law) Rs. 1,50,000/- On deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares. 10. The appellants/claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the claim petition. 11. No order as to costs of the appeal. 12. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.