JUDGMENT : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. Challenging the compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for the death of one P. Dattatreya in a lorry accident as low and inadequate, the claimants filed the instant MACMA. 2. On 13.09.2006 at about 6.50 A.M. on Kodumuru-Kurnool Road near Mango garden of Nallreddy when the deceased P.Dattatreya was proceeding along with his family members in Qualis bearing Registration No. AP-27-AB-7000, a SRMT lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-B-6991 being driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed the Qualis. In the resultant accident the deceased died on the spot and the petitioners sustained injuries. It is alleged that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the lorry driver. It is further averred that the deceased was young person of 24 years and earning about Rs.90,000/- while working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited and due to his sudden demise the petitioners, who are his parents and brother, lost their dependency. MVOP No. 101/2008 came to be filed by the petitioners against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending SRMT lorry, and the respondents 4 to 6, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the Qualis and Rs.50.00 lakhs was claimed as compensation. The respondents 1, 4 & 5 remained ex-parte. The respondents 2 & 3 contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the driver of Qualis vehicle and hence, they are not liable for the claim. Per contra, 6th respondent in his written statement contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of lorry driver and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 alone are liable for the claim. During trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 and X1 to X5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the fault of 1st respondent, who was the driver of the offending lorry. Then regarding compensation, the Tribunal taking into evidence of PWs 1 to 3, held that the deceased was working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the fault of 1st respondent, who was the driver of the offending lorry. Then regarding compensation, the Tribunal taking into evidence of PWs 1 to 3, held that the deceased was working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. Then by taking Ex.X2-bunch of pay slips which contain the last pay drawn by the deceased in the month of August 2006 before his death, the Tribunal fixed his monthly salary at Rs.38,850/-. It arrived his gross annual income at Rs.4,66,200/-. From this, it deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. From the remaining amount of Rs.2,33,100/- the Tribunal deducted 30% towards income tax and held that the net annual contribution of the deceased to his family was Rs.1,63,170/-. Then taking the age of the 1st claimant, who is the mother of deceased, the Tribunal selected ‘13’ as multiplier and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.21,21,210/- (1,63,170 x 13). Then it granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3. Eventually the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. against the respondents 4 to 6. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the insurance company-3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the Tribunal has not taken the correct earnings of the deceased in spite of the cogent oral and documentary evidence; the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the salary of the deceased; it deduced ½ instead of 1/3rd from the gross earnings of the deceased; it took mother’s age instead of the age of deceased for selection of the multiplier and due to all the aforesaid errors, the compensation was drastically reduced. He further argued that the Tribunal awarded low amount of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of estate. He contended that the rate of interest was also low. The learned counsel relied upon a number of decisions and prayed the Court to reassess the compensation. 5. He further argued that the Tribunal awarded low amount of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of estate. He contended that the rate of interest was also low. The learned counsel relied upon a number of decisions and prayed the Court to reassess the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company-3rd respondent Sri Naresh Byrapaneni while fairly admitting that the compensation awarded under certain heads was not in accordance with the accepted principles of law and guidelines rendered in various decisions, urged this Court to consider the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 : MANU/SC/1366/2017 and reassess the compensation suitably. 6. We gave our anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. At the outset, we agree that the Tribunal has committed certain mistakes in evaluation of compensation under different heads. We adverted them as follows: (i) Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was a bachelor. So far as his employment and salary are concerned, the oral evidence of PWs 2 & 3, who are the Deputy Manager in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Hyderabad and Assistant Manager of Indore Branch respectively coupled with the documentary evidence such as exhibits A8, A9 and X1 to X5 would show that the petitioner was working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. So far as the salary is concerned, the Tribunal noted down that as per the exhibits A8 & A9 the salary of deceased was Rs.44,900/- per month from July 2006, but in the month of August 2006 the deceased received salary of Rs.38,850/- as per Ex.X2 pay slip. So the Tribunal has taken into consideration the last drawn salary of the deceased as Rs.38,850/- for computation of compensation. So far as the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.89,000/- is concerned, the Tribunal did not give much preference to the oral evidence of PW4, who is a co-employee in view of the recorded evidence showing a different amount. We do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.38,850/-. However, in our view the Tribunal committed a blunder in not adding any amount to the earnings of the deceased towards future prospects. We do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.38,850/-. However, in our view the Tribunal committed a blunder in not adding any amount to the earnings of the deceased towards future prospects. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while determining the income, addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. Since the deceased in this case was less than 40 years and was a salaried employee, following the said decision, 50% addition should be made towards future prospects. The monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.38,850/- and by adding 50% to it towards future prospects, the gross monthly salary comes to Rs.58,275/- (38850 + 19425). Since the deceased was a bachelor, following the dictum in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 : MANU/SC/0606/2009 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure. Thus, the net monthly salary of the deceased comes to Rs.29,137/-. The gross annual income of the deceased comes to 29,137 x 12 = 3,49,644. After deducting 30% towards income tax, the net annual contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.2,44,750/-. (ii) Then selection of multiplier is concerned, as stated supra, the Tribunal going by the age of PW1, who is the mother of deceased, selected ‘13’ as multiplier. Obviously such selection is wrong inasmuch as in Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mandala Yadagiri Goud, AIR 2019 SC 1825 : MANU/SC/0507/2019 and Kunjan Sadana vs. Mahesh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 812 the Apex Court held that the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Following the aforesaid ratio and as the age of the deceased was 28 years ‘17’ is taken as multiplier as provided in the table given in Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.41,60,750/- (2,44,750 x 17). (iii) Nextly, the appellants contended that the Tribunal awarded a paltry amount under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses. Considering the same and following the guidelines in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), while confirming Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, we grant another Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.41,60,750/- (2,44,750 x 17). (iii) Nextly, the appellants contended that the Tribunal awarded a paltry amount under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses. Considering the same and following the guidelines in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), while confirming Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, we grant another Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. (iv) It should be noted that the appellants claimed higher rate of interest than awarded by the Tribunal, but there is no such claim in the grounds of appeal and as the interest of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal is found to be a reasonable one, we do no consider the said claim of the appellants. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners is as follows: Loss of dependency Rs. 41,60,750 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Total Rs. 41,90,750 7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.21,40,210/- to Rs.41,90,750/- 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 1 to 3 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. 8. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.