JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in MVOP.No.183 of 2009 aggrieved by the decree and order, dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Court, Kurnool at Nandyal (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.4,85,500/- against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, for the death of one Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.02.2009 and sought for enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The case of the petitioners in claim petition is that on 01.02.2009 while the deceased Prasad and his brother Pratap were going in an auto bearing No.A.P.12 W 2533 at Chabolu village to go to Nandyal town, the auto met with accident on N.H.18 road near Gelivi weigh bridge at about 10-00 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving Lorry bearing No.A.P.21 U 0298 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle") came from opposite direction. Due to the said accident, the said Prasad received multiple injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government hospital, Nandyal in 108 Ambulance and later he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. A case in Crime No.21 of 2010 was registered by the Traffic Police Station, Nandyal for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the lorry. b) It is contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years and working as Head Constable (Rank HC-854) at A.P.S.P.II-Battalion, Kurnool and drawing an amount of Rs.10,259/- per month as net salary. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their livelihood. It is averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.A.P.21 U 0298 and the petition is filed claiming compensation against the 1st respondent who is the owner of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent who is the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition regarding the manner of accident, age, income, occupation, death of the deceased due to injuries received by him in the accident. The 1st respondent contended that he was having valid insurance policy with the 2nd respondent and he is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition against him. Later, the 1st respondent was called absent and set exparte. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the driver of the lorry was not negligent and he was also not having valid and effective driving licnece to drive the lorry. The claim of compensation is contended to be excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. During trial, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 and Ex.X.1. 7. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal passed decree and order holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.A.P.21 U 0298 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.4,85,500/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Heard Sri A. Jaya Sankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetti, on behalf of Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company. The 1st respondent remained exparte and suffered decree before the tribunal, his absence will not have any effect in this appeal the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, (2001) 1 ALT 495 (D.B.). 9. The 1st respondent remained exparte and suffered decree before the tribunal, his absence will not have any effect in this appeal the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, (2001) 1 ALT 495 (D.B.). 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.4,85,500/- only as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- without considering the income of the deceased properly and he further argued that the tribunal erred in deducting the pension amount of Rs.7,000/- while determining the monthly income of the deceased and the tribunal ought to have applied "15" instead of "13". He further contended that the amounts granted under other heads also is on lower side. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company argued that the order of the tribunal is basing on the evidence available on record and there is no need to revise the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Basing on the rival contentions of the learned counsel and evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no any dispute with regard to the aspect of rash and negligence driving of the driver of the 1 st respondent and liability aspect. 12. The only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement? 13. As per the evidence of the PW.1, who is wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was a Head Constable in Police service and was drawing an amount of Rs.10,259/- per month as net salary. The Superintendent in II Battalion, APSP, Kurnool was examined as PW.3, deposed that the deceased was working as a Head Constable at II Battalion, APSP, Kurnool at the time of his death. The deceased was drawing the gross salary of Rs.15,389/- per month. Ex.X.1 is the certificate issued by their office. In the cross examination, PW.3 deposed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid towards death benefit to the wife of the deceased and he further deposed that he do not know whether any appointment was given on compassionate grounds to the family members of the deceased or not. In the evidence of PW.1, she stated that she was drawing a pension of Rs.7,000/- every month. In the evidence of PW.1, she stated that she was drawing a pension of Rs.7,000/- every month. The tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, if he has alive, and his contribution to the family fixed by the tribunal as Rs.10,000/-. Since, PW.1 i.e., wife of the deceased has been receiving Rs.7,000/- per month towards pension, the tribunal fixed the loss of income would be Rs.3,000/- per month. The age of the deceased was considered as 45 years at the time of his death and applied multiplier "13" for calculating the compensation. The tribunal therefore, determined the pecuniary loss of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.4,68,000/-. Rs.7,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.8,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. In total the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,85,500/- as compensation to the petitioners. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the latest judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2019) 1 ALD 55 (SC) in which similar issue came up for consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos.12 and 14 as follows: 12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death. 14. 14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted. 15. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, on account of pensionary benefit, gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. In the instant case, the tribunal erroneously deducted the pension amount of Rs.7,000/- per month being paid to the wife of the deceased while determining the monthly income of the deceased and basing on that calculation the loss of dependency/pecuniary loss was determined. The tribunal also committed error in applying multiplier "13" for the age group of 41 to 45 years. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC) multiplier "14" is to be applied for the age group of 41 to 45 years. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 45 years and as such, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is "14". 16. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under various heads can be detailed as below: (a) loss of dependency: Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 14 = : Rs.16,80,000-00 (b) loss to estate : Rs. 16,500-00 (c) loss of consortium : Rs. 44,000-00 (d) funeral expenses : Rs. 16,500-00 (the amounts awarded above under (b), (c) and (d) are enhanced at the rate of 10% as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 17. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.17,57,000/-. 18. 16,500-00 (c) loss of consortium : Rs. 44,000-00 (d) funeral expenses : Rs. 16,500-00 (the amounts awarded above under (b), (c) and (d) are enhanced at the rate of 10% as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 17. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.17,57,000/-. 18. Basing on the evidence available on record and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is granting compensation more than the claim made which is just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation and the view of this Court is supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) ACJ 12 (SC) held as follows: "(10) Thereafter Section 168 empowers the claims tribunal 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just.' Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation." 19. The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) ACJ 2742 (SC) Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) ACJ 2020 (SC) and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) ACJ 1403 in which it was held that tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation. 20. In the result, the MACMA No.1392 of 2010 is allowed and ordered as follows: (a) the compensation amount of Rs.4,85,500/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,57,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh and fifty seven thousand only); (b) the enhanced amount of Rs.12,71,500/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (c) the tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount after payment of the requisite Court Fee on the enhanced amount. (d) the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners; (e) the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them; (f) the apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall be in the same ratio as is fixed by the tribunal while apportioning compensation granted by it; (g) the other directions of the tribunal shall remain unaltered; (h) there shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.