JUDGMENT : The 2nd and 3rd respondents/insurer filed this appeal challenging the propriety of decree and award dated 05.10.2007 in O.P.No.1215 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2004 at about 7.30 P.M. while Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased was returning home on foot after the day’s business, on the highway of Hanmakonda-Hyderabad, at Ghanpur, an auto bearing registration No. AP-15-W-4116 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed and caused his instantaneous death. The wife and children of Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased pleading loss of dependency, filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The Tribunal after considering the material and evidence on record, awarded Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and held all the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 4. In this appeal, the insurer contested that the Tribunal erred in considering Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier employed in assessing the compensation is improper. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants pleaded that though the petitioners claimed that Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased was doing business in vessels and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. Further future prospects of the income and the compensation under conventional heads were not considered. Hence, prayed for granting just compensation. 6. In the above rival claims, the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?” 7. In determining the compensation in death cases, the foundational factors to be considered are the age and income of the deceased. 8. As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged 33 years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from the vessels business. No independent evidence is placed to prove this aspect. However, considering the entries in the post mortem report/Ex.A-4, the Tribunal has believed the age of deceased as 33 years by the date of accident. Further contemplating the possible income earning capacity at the age of deceased the Tribunal on an average Rs.100/- per day is taken as earnings and believed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The appellants/insurer except raising objection failed to place any fact or circumstance much less any material to consider otherwise. Wherefore, the respondents/claimants pleaded occupation of the deceased remained undisturbed. The appellants/insurer except raising objection failed to place any fact or circumstance much less any material to consider otherwise. Wherefore, the respondents/claimants pleaded occupation of the deceased remained undisturbed. Nevertheless, having regard to the wages of manual labour at relevant point of time, the tribunal considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- is found reasonable. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 860. held that in computing the loss of dependency, the future prospects of income of a self-employed or on fixed salary shall also be included. As the deceased was below 40 years of age by the date of accident, 40% of the future prospects of income shall be added. Resultantly, the monthly income and annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) and Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12) respectively. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), held that where there are 2 to 3 dependents, 1/3rd of the total income is to be deducted towards personal consumption. Accordingly, (1/3rd of Rs.50,400) = Rs.16,800/- shall be deducted from the annual income of Rs.50,400/-, thereby the annual contribution of deceased to the appellants/petitioners would be Rs.33,600/- (Rs.50,400/- minus Rs.16,800/-). 11. With regard to multiplier, the law is well settled that in claims on contest, the multiplier scale scheduled in the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) fortified by the authority of Pranay Sethi (supra) is applicable. Accordingly, for the age group of 31 to 35 years, the multiplier set out at 16 shall be applied. 12. Correspondingly, if the above values are multiplied, i.e., Rs.33,600/- x 16, it comes to Rs.5,37,600/-. The appellants/petitioners are entitled for this amount under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. 13. Besides, the appellants/petitioners are also entitled for compensation under ‘conventional heads’ as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi (2 supra), i.e., Rs.15,000/-towards loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st respondent/1st petitioner towards spousal consortium. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the authority between United India Insurance Co. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 reinforced that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children as, parental consortium for the loss of the parental aid, protection, society, love and affection. 15. Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd respondents/2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. 16. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled for the following amounts, viz., : (i) Loss of dependency : Rs.5,37,600.00 (ii) Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000.00 (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 (iv) Spousal Consortium to 1st respondent /1st petitioner : Rs. 40,000.00 (v) Parental Consortium to 2nd & 3rd respondents/petitioners @ Rs.40,000/- each : Rs. 80,000.00 Total : Rs.6,87,600.00 17. At this juncture the point arises for consideration is: “Whether the respondents/claim petitioners are entitled to a larger compensation without there being cross appeal or cross objections?” 18. The Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts statutory duty on the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. Further the enabling provision Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. empowers the appellate Court to pass or make such further order/decree as the case may be required. 19. In this context, it is proper to note the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court between Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, (2015) 4 SCC 237 . In para No.13, held as under: “The tribunal has awarded Rs.2,24,000/- as against the same, claimants have not filed any appeal. As against the award passed by the tribunal when the claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr. and Ningamma & Anr. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr. and Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. As against the award passed by the tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.” 20. This view is bolstered in Surekha and others v. Santosh and others, 2020 ACJ 2156. In this authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the aspect that though the Hon’ble High Court concluded the entitlement of the claimants for more compensation than claimed, declined to grant the same on the ground of not filing cross appeal. Thus held: “By now, it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation is reference to the motor accidents, the court should not take hyper-technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants” and awarded the just compensation, to the claimants. 21. The prescriptions of the above authorities are explicating that higher compensation than the claimed can be awarded, without there being any cross appeal or objection, owing to the statutory duty of awarding the just compensation. In effect, the just compensation arrived in the preceding discussion shall be granted to the respondents/claim petitioners. 22. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The appeal filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents/insurer is dismissed; (ii) However, the respondents/claim petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.6,87,600/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty seven thousand and six hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization; (iii) the 4th respondent/owner/insured and the appellants 1 and 2/insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order; (iv) on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the respondents/claim petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amounts as per the proportions awarded by the Tribunal; As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.