JUDGMENT : 1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 04.02.2009 passed in O.P.No.1638 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of one Gopu Nadipi Sailu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 10.05.2004. It is stated that on 10.05.2004 the deceased, along with one Dumala Ashok, were proceeding on Scooter bearing No.AP-10-K-4884 from Jannepally to the Shivar of Chikli Village, at that time another Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H 7322 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture labour work. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition. It is stated in the counter that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, as such, the claim-petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and subsisting driving licence as on the date of the accident and as such the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the accident occurred on 10.05.2004 at about 7.20 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H 7322 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the accident occurred on 10.05.2004 at about 7.20 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H 7322 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 8. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked. 9. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H 7322 and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. 10. Heard and perused the record. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that though the deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same. 12. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- per month since no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased. On the point of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced. 13. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced. 13. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by the respondents. 14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing agriculture labour work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month but no proof of income has been filed. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/-per month for any non-earning member. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month and Rs.37,800/- per annum. As per the Ex.A4-Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier as ‘16’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (3 supra) instead of ‘17’. Adopting multiplier ‘16’, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.37,800/- x 16, which comes to Rs.6,04,800/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi’s case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,81,800/-. 15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 16. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,81,800/-. 15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 16. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 , the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) held as under : “It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.” 17. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. 18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,46,000/- to Rs.6,81,800/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.