JUDGMENT : DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 31.01.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 14/2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District granting compensation of Rs. 3,22,970/- against their claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- the appellants-claimants preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A. 2. On 28.04.2008, during wee hours N. Venkata Ramana (hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) along with others went in a tractor bearing No. AP-04T-8932 as a coolie. After loading the wooden logs in the tractor-cum-trailer, while returning from the Mango garden situated between Devapatla-Guttapalli, the driver of the tractor had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, as a result, the tractor fell into a pit. The deceased had sustained head injury and died on the spot near S.T. Colony, Devapatla. Later, the claimants, who are the heirs of the deceased, filed the petition. 3. The 1st respondent proceeded ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement opposing the claim and contended that the 1st respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also vehicle being non-transport vehicle, should not be used as a transport vehicle. The owner of the vehicle permitted to use the vehicle for transporting firewood and the coolies by violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the tractor. The amount of compensation claimed, is exorbitant. 4. During trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked, on behalf of the claimants. RW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 5. The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,22,970/- under various heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization and proportionate costs, payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally to the claimants. Hence, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as abysmally low and inadequate. 6. Heard the arguments of Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance company. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the compensation awarded is quite inadequate inasmuch as the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 6. Heard the arguments of Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance company. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the compensation awarded is quite inadequate inasmuch as the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- as the deceased was a coolie. It is further contended that the deceased was young and despite the same, the Tribunal had not added any amount to his income towards future prospects and thereby the compensation for the loss of dependency was drastically cut short. He thus prayed to suitably enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company Mr. N. Ramakrishna argued that there is no record to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal took reasonably amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as income of the deceased. Accordingly, the compensation by all means is just and reasonable. The appeal may be dismissed as there are no merits in it. 9. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and it requires any enhancement? 10. This Court, by taking into consideration all the pleadings, evidence and the contentions raised by both sides, is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and not determined by following the principles laid down in a catena of decisions referred by the Hon’ble Apex Court and different High Courts. 11. Admittedly, the deceased N. Venkata Ramana was aged about 30 years, on the date of the accident i.e. on 28.04.2008 and admittedly he was a labourer/coolie. Though the appellants took a plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, no documentary proof is filed. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and awarded compensation. However in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to grant Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- under the conventional heads viz. Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses. But, the same is not followed by the Tribunal. 12. 3,000/- and awarded compensation. However in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to grant Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- under the conventional heads viz. Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses. But, the same is not followed by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the 1st respondent did not have valid driving license to drive the vehicle having passengers and fire wood in the tractor. Though the said plea was taken before the Tribunal, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to be raised in the appeal. Therefore, in my considered view and in view of the settled legal positions, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 13. Indeed, in my considered view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and not determined by following the principles laid down in catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and different High Court, as stated supra. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. Thus, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi case, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded towards Loss of Estate is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards Loss of Consortium is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- and the amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded towards Funeral Expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- and the total compensation payable to the appellants is as follows: Loss of dependency Rs. 3,11,970 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000 Total Rs. 3,81,970 14. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 3,22,970/- to Rs. 3,81,970/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. 15. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.