JUDGMENT : 1. The insurer/2nd respondent disputing the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and order dated 22.03.2012 in O.P.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act Cases, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Tribunal’), preferred this appeal. 2. The parents of Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased, who died in the motor vehicular accident dated 15.01.2019 filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- for the loss of dependency. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief is that, on 15.01.2009 while Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased along with his friend were proceeding on Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing Registration No.AP-29-F-8925 at Kurmedu gate, one Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No.APNTR, 24-L-9940 came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle, as a result, the riders of the motor cycle were slumped and received severe head injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record placed by the petitioners held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailor, thus awarded Rs.9,20,000/- with 7.5% interest as compensation against the owner and insurer/respondents of the Tractor and Trailor/1stand 2nd respondents. 4. In appeal, the 2nd respondent/insurer (hereinafter ‘respondent’), has contended that the Tribunal should have considered that the income of the deceased was not established. That apart, the Income Tax Returns/Exs.A8 and A9 are also not proved. Thus, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Further, the multiplier applied for computing the compensation and the interest amount awarded are improper. Hence, prayed for reassessment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners (hereinafter ‘the petitioners’) pleaded that though the material evidence is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased, the same was not taken into account by the Tribunal and on lack of advise the petitioners could not file appeal. However, prayed for considering the material and to grant just compensation. 6. I have carefully perused the pleadings of the learned counsel and the material on record. 7. The petitioners pleaded that Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.3,04,100/- per annum. To substantiate these aspects, the petitioners filed Pan card/Ex.A-6 and Original Warranty Certificate of JCB/Ex.A-7, Income Tax Returns/Ex.A-8, Original challan of income tax/Ex.A-9, copy of Registration Certificate/Ex.A-10. I have carefully perused the pleadings of the learned counsel and the material on record. 7. The petitioners pleaded that Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.3,04,100/- per annum. To substantiate these aspects, the petitioners filed Pan card/Ex.A-6 and Original Warranty Certificate of JCB/Ex.A-7, Income Tax Returns/Ex.A-8, Original challan of income tax/Ex.A-9, copy of Registration Certificate/Ex.A-10. It is their claim that the deceased was earning by working on civil contracts on his JCB Machine and also having agricultural income. 8. Though, the respondent disputed the documents filed by the petitioners, no material aspect for consideration is made out. Further, having regard to fact that the machinery and the agricultural land remains with the petitioners and the entries in the tax returns, the finding of the tribunal as to the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is found reasonable, thus affirmed. 9. The Hon’ble Apex 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 shall be taken into account. Thus considering the age and occupation of the deceased 40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Further as Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased was bachelor, 50% of the income is deducted towards personal expenses as per the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., 2013 ACJ 1409. Resultantly the annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioners would be Rs.84,000/-. This number if multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e., 18, the total comes to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.84,000/- x 18). The petitioners are entitled to this amount towards for the ‘loss of dependency’. 10. This apart, as per the dictum of Pranay Sethi (2 supra), the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 , in the decision between United India Insurance Co. 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 , in the decision between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 consolidated that the amount of consortium shall be awarded to the parents towards ‘filial consortium’ for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Correspondingly, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under various heads is as follows : DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 15,12,000.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charges 15,000.00 Filial Consortium to petitioners 1 and 2 80,000.00 TOTAL 16,22,000.00 13. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others, 2020 ACJ 2156 held that higher compensation than the claimed can be awarded, without there being any cross appeal or objection, owing to the statutory duty under Section 168 of the M.V.Act in awarding the just compensation. 14. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms : (i) The appeal filed by the appellant/insurer is dismissed; (ii) However, the respondents/petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.16,22,000/-, (Rupees sixteen lakhs twenty two thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization; (iii) the appellant/insurer and insured/owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with interest by setting of the amounts paid, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment; (iv) on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the respondent/claim petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amount as per the apportionment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.