JUDGMENT K.Lakshman, J. - Since there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, Insurance Company, on 30.01.2020, the Registry was directed to list the matter on 05.02.2020 under the caption for order. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent, Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal is disposed of on perusal of material placed on record. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2006 passed in M.V.O.P. No.3081 of 2004 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the appellants/claimants. 4. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, did not file any appeal challenging the said finding. Therefore, the said finding has attained the finality. 5. The only issue that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 6. In the absence of age proof of the deceased and since there was no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as 19 years, the learned Tribunal, by taking into consideration Exs.A-2 and A-3, inquest report and postmortem report, respectively, has rightly considered the age of the deceased as 19 years and there is no error in it. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal committed an error in fixing the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per year instead of considering the principle held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2011 13 SCC 236 wherein for a person who works as a cooli, monthly income was taken as Rs. 4,500/- and whereas in the present case, the deceased was working as a mason, which is a skilled work. 8. Following the principle held by the Apex Court in Ramachndrappa's case (one supra) this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month. 4,500/- and whereas in the present case, the deceased was working as a mason, which is a skilled work. 8. Following the principle held by the Apex Court in Ramachndrappa's case (one supra) this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Further, following the principle held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 2009 6 SCC 121 appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased would be 18, therefore, the same is considered. Further, since the deceased was a bachelor 50% income shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded to consider the future prospects of the deceased. Accordingly, taking into consideration the principles held by the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI, 2017 16 SCC 680 40% of the income can be considered towards future prospects of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of Estate. They are also eligible for Rs. 5,000/- towards Transportation charges and Rs. 1,000/- towards damages of Cloths. 9. Further, following the principle held by the Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM, 2018 18 SCC 130 Rs. 40,000/- each claimant, being father and mother, is granted towards filial consortium. 10. Accordingly, 4,500 x 12 = 54,000 + 21,600 (40%) = 75,600 (-) 50% = 37,800 x 18 = 6,80,400/- + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 5,000 + 1,000 = 7,96,400/- would be the compensation. 11. Thus, in all, appellants, claimants, are entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,90,400/- (Rupees seven lakhs ten thousand four hundred only) as compensation under the following heads: i) Loss of dependency ... Rs.6,58,800/- ii) Future prospects (40%) ... Rs.0,21,600/- iii) Loss of estate ... Rs.0,15,000/- iv) Funeral expenses ... Rs.0,15,000/- v) Filial consortium ... Rs.0,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each x 2) vi) Transportation Charges ... Rs.0,05,000/- vii) Damage of Cloths ... Rs.0,01,000/- __________________ Total: Rs.7,96,400/- __________________ 12. Thus, the said amount of Rs. 7,96,400/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) is awarded as compensation which is just and reasonable 13. Since the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum the same is confirmed. 14. Rs.0,05,000/- vii) Damage of Cloths ... Rs.0,01,000/- __________________ Total: Rs.7,96,400/- __________________ 12. Thus, the said amount of Rs. 7,96,400/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) is awarded as compensation which is just and reasonable 13. Since the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum the same is confirmed. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court is having power to grant just and reasonable compensation to which the appellants are entitled to as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAMLA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2019 2 SCC 192 . The appellants shall, however, pay requisite differential Court fee on the enhanced compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 15. The 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, which was already deposited, if any, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.