JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.336 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/-for the death of Chabattula Prasad/deceased. He is the husband of the 1st claimant, the father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of the 4th claimant. 4. The claimant's case is that on 10.03.2010 at about 1.45 P.M., when the deceased was proceeding opposite to Sri Kanaka Durga Tiffin Centre on railway station road, Tanuku, a bus bearing registration No. A.P. 10 Z 8134, hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) of the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him from behind, due to which he fell on the road, and the offending vehicle ran over him, for which he died on the spot. 5. The 1st respondent filed a Memo adopting the written statement of the 2nd respondent. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement contending that the accident in question did not occur due to the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver, and the same occurred due to the deceased's negligence only. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.14. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. 8. After appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent; awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.2,86,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum against the respondents. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as vendor-cum-seller in railway, but the Tribunal erred in taking Rs.2,000/- per month. He further contends that the post-mortem examination certificate indicates that the age of the deceased is 35 years. Still, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased between 41 to 45 years without any basis. He further contends that the post-mortem examination certificate indicates that the age of the deceased is 35 years. Still, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased between 41 to 45 years without any basis. It also has not awarded compensation under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate; the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @ Rs.9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum and prayed to allow the appeal enhancing the compensation to claimants. 11. Learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. supports the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident, negligence of the 1st respondent, and the death of Chabattula Prasad (deceased) due to injuries sustained in the accident are not disputed either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. Hence said findings have attained finality. Thus, it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case. 13. Now the point for determination is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 14. The relationship between the deceased and the claimants is not disputed. To prove the occupation of the deceased, the claimants relied on Ex.A.11-identity card of the deceased, Ex.A.14-register for vendors and other staff of licenced contractors, in which the name of the deceased is mentioned as an employee of Satyanarayana. The Tribunal observed that the claimants had not placed any cogent material to prove the deceased's earnings. It seems that the claimants got examined witnesses to establish the earnings of the deceased, but the Tribunal, by giving its reasons not inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.3. However, the Tribunal fixed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. The accident in question occurred on 10.03.2010. In the absence of proof of the earnings, the Apex Court, in a case between Lakshmi Devi and others vs Mohammad Tabber, 2008 ACJ 1488 , held that in today's world, even common labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. Given the same, the Tribunal should not have assessed the monthly income @ Rs.2,000/-, though the claimants have placed clinching documentary evidence to establish that the deceased was dealing with the business at the railway plot form. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court can assess the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 15. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court can assess the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 15. In the grounds of appeal, it is strongly contended that the Tribunal, without any basis, considered the deceased would fall under the age group of 41 to 45 years. Because of such a plea taken by the claimants, I have carefully reviewed the material placed on record. The claimants have mentioned the deceased's age as 35 years only by the date of death. As rightly observed, the claimants have not placed the date of birth certificate of the deceased. In the absence of the same, usually, the tribunals consider the age referred to in the post-mortem report. The claimants have placed a post-mortem examination certificate- Ex.A.3. However, the Tribunal has not accepted the age mentioned in the post-mortem examination report-Ex.A.3, which shows the age of the deceased is 35 years. The Tribunal has given its reasons for not relying on the age indicated in the Ex A3 certificate; it observed that as per the age particulars of the 1st claimant, as mentioned in the long cause title of the petition, he was 33 years during the relevant period. In this case, the first claimant is Rathna Kumari, the deceased's wife. It seems from the said observations of the Tribunal that the age of the first claimant is 33 years. Given the said finding, I have gone through the petition averments wherein the age of the first claimant is shown as 33 years. The Tribunal observes that when such is the position, the case of the claimants, that the deceased had 35 years only during the relevant period cannot be appreciated. The accident occurred in 2010, and the claim petition was filed in 2010. But the Tribunal, relying on the age of the first claimant shown in the petition, disbelieved the deceased's age. This Court views that when the first claimant, the wife, was 33 years old, I do not understand the difficulty for the Tribunal to accept the age of the deceased as 35 years as of the date of the accident. Without good reasons, the Tribunal disbelieved the claimants' case regarding the age of the deceased; it does not stand for legal scrutiny. Without good reasons, the Tribunal disbelieved the claimants' case regarding the age of the deceased; it does not stand for legal scrutiny. At any stretch of the imagination, it can not hold that when the wife's age is 33 years, as on the date of the accident, the husband's age should not be 35 years. 16. Relying on the post-mortem examination report, this Court considers the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of the accident. 17. Coming to the loss of earnings, while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Hence, an amount of Rs.1200/- (Rs.3,000/- x 40%) can be considered towards the future prospectus, and the monthly earnings of the deceased would arrive at Rs.4,200/- (3,000/- +1200/-). From which, one-fourth of the amount should be deducted as held by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased, where a number of dependent family members are 4 to 6 in number, accordingly an amount of Rs.1,050/- is to be deducted from the monthly earnings of the deceased and the contribution of the earnings towards the family members would arrive at Rs.3,150/-. Going by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 the relevant multiplier for the person's age group of 31 to 35 years is 16', and as such, the loss of earnings of the deceased would arrive at Rs.6,04,800/- (3,150x12x16). 18. Coming to the consideration of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held, in paragraph 61, that : "(viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at 10% every three years." 19. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), at paragraph 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at 10% every three years." 19. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), at paragraph 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. (8.7) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.), dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', parental consortium', and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The filial consortium is the right of parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the end of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The most incredible suffering for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and role in the family unit." 20. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd’s case and Pranay Sethi's case, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each) towards parental consortium and an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed hereunder:- Towards loss of earnings Rs. 6,04,800/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Parental consortium Rs. 88,000/- Spousal consortium Rs. 44,000/- Total Rs. 7,69,800/- 21. The claimants filed their claim for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In Ramla vs National Insurance Co. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed hereunder:- Towards loss of earnings Rs. 6,04,800/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Parental consortium Rs. 88,000/- Spousal consortium Rs. 44,000/- Total Rs. 7,69,800/- 21. The claimants filed their claim for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In Ramla vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., CIVIL APPEAL NO.11495 OF 2018 the Apex Court held that there is no restriction to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed, and as such, given the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.7,69,800/- exceeding the claimed amount. However, the claimants shall pay the requisite court fee over and above the compensation awarded. 22. The learned counsel for the claimants also contended that the Tribunal had granted interest @ 7.5% per annum without considering the prevailing bank rate of interest. The accident occurred in 2010, and the overall bank interest rate was more than 12% per annum at that time and requested the Court to grant reasonable interest. By following the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.N. Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 , Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), and the prevailing bank rate of interest as of the accident, it can safely be held that awarding the interest rate at 7.5% per annum is just and reasonable; no interference is required. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 2,86,000/- to Rs.7,69,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs, sixty-nine thousand, eight hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The claimants are directed to pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondents must deposit the compensation within two months of receiving a copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation per the Tribunal's apportionment. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.