JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the appellants-petitioners against the order and decree dated 05-04-2007 in O.P.No. 159 of 2005 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal– cum– District Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the Tribunal), by virtue of which the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. against the respondent for the death of the deceased in a motor accident which occurred on 02-06-2004 at about 6 p.m. 2. The facts of the case are that on the date of accident, while the deceased was crossing road from western side to eastern side, an RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 799 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and received multiple injuries and died while undergoing treatment on 07-06-2004. The deceased was doing agriculture and livestock business and earning Rs.5,000/-p.m.. The petitioners, who are wife and children of the deceased respectively, lost the said income. Hence, the claim. 3. The respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus and the age and avocation of the deceased and the nature of incident were also disputed. 4. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 11 Z 799 of the respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief?" 5. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief?" 5. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence of both sides, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, against which this appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-; that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/-per month; that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was doing agriculture besides livestock business and earning Rs.5,000/-per month and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the Minimum Wages Act, the Government fixed the wages of unskilled workers as Rs.2,200/-per month. On these grounds, the appellants seek to set aside the award of the Tribunal. 7. Heard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as per the Minimum Wages Act, the Government fixed the wages of unskilled workers as Rs.2,200/-per month but the Tribunal did not consider the same. However, the award of the Tribunal would show that the evidence with regard to age of the deceased was inconsistent. This Court also sees that while in the claim statement the age of the deceased was mentioned as 48 years, in the evidence P.W.1 stated that the age of the deceased was 38 years; in the postmortem examination report, it was mentioned as 55 years and in the hospital records, it was mentioned as 65 years. Hence, considering the above discrepancy with regard to age, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 55 to 60 years and applied multiplier 6, which cannot be pointed out as an error. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Rs.1,200/-taken as income of the deceased is on low side. The deceased even if is considered as a labourer, since his age is about 60 years, Rs.2,000/-can be the minimum that can be taken as the income of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Rs.1,200/-taken as income of the deceased is on low side. The deceased even if is considered as a labourer, since his age is about 60 years, Rs.2,000/-can be the minimum that can be taken as the income of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 25590 OF 2014, an addition of 10% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased was self-employed and was between the age of 50 and 60 years, is made. Then, it would come to Rs.2,200/-per month. Out of the same, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. After 1/3rd of the said amount as deducted towards personal expenditure, the loss of monthly income would be Rs.1,467/-(i.e. Rs.2,200-733) and the loss of annual income comes to Rs.1,467x12=Rs.17,604/-. The multiplier relevant for the age of the deceased as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is undisputedly 9. Hence, it would come to Rs.17,604/-x9=Rs.1,58,436/-. The said amount has to be awarded towards loss of future income of the deceased. Apart from the above, Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses are awarded following the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (1st supra) and Rs.5,000/-, which was granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, is also awarded. Hence, in all, the award of the Tribunal stands enhanced by Rs.1,33,436/-, making the total award as Rs.2,33,436/-which is rounded off to Rs.2,34,000/-. 10. Though the compensation granted exceeds the claimed amount, now the law is well settled by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , wherein it was held that the compensation has to be just and it can exceed the claimed amount. This Court also in Adam Indur Mutemma Vs. Rathod Peddita, 2015 (4) ALD 585 (L.B.) held that compensation amount can exceed the claimed amount, subject to payment of Court fee. 11. The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate specified and from the time indicated in the award of the Tribunal. 11. The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate specified and from the time indicated in the award of the Tribunal. The appellants shall pay the differential Court fee. 12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal shall stand dismissed in consequence.