JUDGMENT : Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 13.02.2007 passed in O.P.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Alakuntla Yellaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 15.06.2003 at about 5.30 P.M., the deceased and his wife were proceeding on the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 34 T/R, when they reached Nagaram Bangla outskirts, one DCM Van bearing No.AP 09 V 9812 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The wife of the deceased also sustained grievous fracture injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing fruit business in Riyad, Arab Country and used to earn Rs.45,000/- per month. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van, the claimants filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of aforesaid Van, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. 5. Before the Tribunal the 1st respondent filed counter denying all the allegations in the petition. The 2nd respondent filed counter putting the claimants to the strict proof of the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of DCM Van and its involvement in the accident. It is also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further stated that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Alakuntla Yellaiah died in the road accident? It is also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further stated that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Alakuntla Yellaiah died in the road accident? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP 09 V 9812 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,93,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. 9. Heard and perused the record. 10. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Van by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van. 11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing fruit business in Riyad, Arab Country and earning Rs.45,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- stating that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. 11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing fruit business in Riyad, Arab Country and earning Rs.45,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- stating that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. As per Ex.A6, original passport of the deceased would show that the deceased was visiting Riyad during his life time and the evidence of P.W.1 would show that the deceased was residing in Riyad and he was doing fruit business in Riyad. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased must have earned atleast Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2000/-). 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 six in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.5,250/-per month. Since the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier ‘15’, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,45,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,22,000/-. 12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 13. 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. 13. 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.” 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,93,500/- to Rs.10,22,000/-. 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.