JUDGMENT U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - Challenging the order dated 16.03.2007 in O.P.No.1175/2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru granting compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- against their claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, the claimants filed the instant M.A.C.M.A. 2. On 25.07.2006 at about 10.30 A.M., one Maddula Veera Venkata Nageswara Rao of Kovvur in West Godavari District while proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 R 669 from Kovvur to Rajahmundry and passing on the road-cum-rail bridge, Kovvur, a Swaraj Mazda van bearing No.AP 35T 9398 came in the opposite direction and in the process of overtaking its front vehicle, the van driver drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased causing his instantaneous death. It is averred that the deceased was aged 34 years and was a member of HUF and running rice and kirana wholesale business and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to his sudden demise and due to the unfortunate death of his wife on the following day, his minor son became a destitute. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of van driver. On these pleas, the claimants who are the minor son and parents of the deceased filed O.P. No.1175/2006 against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The respondents filed counters and opposed the claim mainly contending that the accident was occurred due to the fault of deceased himself. During trial, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence held that 1st respondent was responsible for the accident and granted compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs as follows: Loss of dependency 5,92,400 Loss of love and effection 15,000 Transport charges 2,000 Funeral expenses 2,000 Total (in Rs.) 6,11,400 Hence, the MACMA is filed by the claimants challenging the compensation as abysmally low and inadequate. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, and Sri Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/insurance company. 4. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, and Sri Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/insurance company. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants that compensation awarded is quite inadequate inasmuch as, the lower Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.5,000/- despite the fact that he was a member of Hindu Undivided Family and running the family business of wholesale rice and kirana shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further contended that the deceased was young and aged 34 years and despite the same the Tribunal has not added any amount to his income towards future prospects and thereby, the compensation for the loss of dependency was drastically cut short. The compensation under other heads is also paltry. He thus prayed to suitably enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Sri Naresh Byrapaneni argued that the family business stands in the name of 2nd petitioner and there is no record to show that the deceased was earning any income exclusively. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as income of the deceased and accordingly, calculated the compensation which by all means just and reasonable. He would submit that compensation awarded by the Tribunal was already deposited by the insurance company and hence, the appeal may be dismissed as there are no merits in it. 6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? 7. Point: We gave our anxious consideration to the pleadings, evidence and contentions raised by both sides. At the outset, our considered view is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and not assessed by following the principles laid down in a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and different High Courts. Admittedly, the deceased M.V.V. Nageswara Rao was aged about 34 years by the date of the death in accident i.e., on 25.07.2006 as Ex.A12-SSC marks list shows his date of birth as 26.08.1972. Admittedly, the deceased M.V.V. Nageswara Rao was aged about 34 years by the date of the death in accident i.e., on 25.07.2006 as Ex.A12-SSC marks list shows his date of birth as 26.08.1972. So far as avocation and income of the deceased are concerned, it is the plea of the petitioners in the O.P. that they belong to Vaishya community and theirs is a Hindu undivided family and they are pursuing the family business i.e., 'Sri Veerabhadra Rice & General Stores' which is run by the deceased and his elder brother. Further, the deceased was also running the business stands in the name of his sister-in-law and in all he was getting Rs.20,000/- per month. In proof of the income, the petitioners filed Ex.A5-Turnover Tax Registration (TOT) certificate and Ex.A10-Income Tax returns. A perusal of Ex.A5-Form TOT 003 Registration Certificate shows that Sri Veerabhadra Rice and General stores was registered as TOT under Section 17(7) and Rule 10(C) & 12 of the A.P. VAT Act. The said store is said to belong to the HUF of 2nd petitioner and his sons, wherein the deceased was one of the members. Then Ex.A10-Form 2D returns for the Assessment Year 2006-07 submitted by the 2 nd petitioner shows that the total income under all heads roughly comes to Rs.2.00 lakhs. No doubt the returns are submitted in the name of 2nd petitioner. However, since returns were submitted on behalf of HUF, the same can be taken into consideration to determine the probable income of the deceased for computation of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the 2 nd petitioner has three sons including the deceased. So the income shown in Ex.A10 can be presumed to be generated by the father and his three sons as HUF. It is the case of petitioners that the deceased used to take major role in running the family Kirana business. In fact, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-charge sheet and Ex.A6-Inquest Report would show that on the date of accident the deceased was proceeding from Kovvur to Rajahmundry on his motorcycle to purchase kirana articles for his shop. Hence, it can be believed that the deceased used to take active role in running the family business. In that view, we consider that the Tribunal fixed a low monthly income of the deceased. Hence, it can be believed that the deceased used to take active role in running the family business. In that view, we consider that the Tribunal fixed a low monthly income of the deceased. Having regard to the nature of the business the deceased engaged 5 in, his contribution being substantial one, we fix his monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. Then, in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298( MANU/SC/0606/2009 ) , towards future prospects, certain percentage of addition was made to the salary of the deceased and this addition was confined to salaried persons only. However, in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157( MANU/SC/1366/2017 =) , the Apex Court found no rationale in confining this benefit to only salaried persons and not to self-employed or fixed income persons. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that an addition should be made in case the deceased was self-employed or fixed salaried; an addition of 40% if he was aged below 40 years; 25% if he was aged between 40 to 50 years; and 10% where he was between the age of 50 to 60 years. Applying this rule to the instant case and as the deceased was aged 34 years, 40% of increment is granted. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,800/- [7000+2800]. The annual income of the deceased which serves the purpose as multiplicand comes to Rs.1,17,600/- [9800 x 12]. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net annual income comes to Rs.78,400/-. Multiplier is concerned, in Sarla Verma (1 supra), the Apex Court approved multiplier 16' for the deceased persons in the age group of 31 to 35 years. In that view, the total compensation for the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,54,400/- [78,400 x 16]. In Pranay Sethi (2 supra), the Supreme Court directed to grant Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively under the conventional heads viz., loss of estate and funeral expenses. The same is followed in this case. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners is as follows: Loss of dependency 12,54,400 Loss of estate 15,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Transport charges 2,000 Loss of love and effection 15,000 Total (in Rs.) 13,01,400 8. The same is followed in this case. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners is as follows: Loss of dependency 12,54,400 Loss of estate 15,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Transport charges 2,000 Loss of love and effection 15,000 Total (in Rs.) 13,01,400 8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,11,400/- to Rs.13,01,040/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.