JUDGMENT : Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.09.2007 passed in O.P.No.1653 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad (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 hereinafter be 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.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.06.2006. It is stated that on 09.06.2006 at about 9.30 hours, the deceased boarded the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5218 at Motigalli “T” Junction and at that time the driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the bus, came under rear wheel of the bus and sustained injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was a tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the respondents, who are custodians of the said bus, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. The respondents filed counter denying the averments in the petition including the manner in which the accident took and also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also stated that the deceased tried to catch the running bus, slipped and fell down on the road and hence the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident resulting in death of Mohd. Ahmed occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5218? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 7. Ahmed occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5218? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the RTC bus was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,250/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents. 9. Heard and perused the record. 10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (6) SCC 347 . It is further submitted that though the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 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. 11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum 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 (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. 12. Pranay Sethi and others (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. 12. 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 RTC bus by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 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 Bus 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 RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5218. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs.6,000/- 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, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.2,100/-per month. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (supra) when the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while determining the multiplier and not the age of the mother. Since the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . Since the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . Adopting multiplier 18, his total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18, which comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Apart from the above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.27,250/- towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,13,850/-. 14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 15. 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.” 16. 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. 17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,92,250/- to Rs.5,13,850/-. 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 the respondents. 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. 18. 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. 18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.