JUDGMENT T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2011 in M.V. O.P. No. 1606 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short 'the Tribunal') the 2nd Respondent -- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., preferred the appeal M.A.C.M.A. No. 2486 of 2012 to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the claimants preferred the appeal MACMA No. 4280 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and common judgment is being passed, since they have arisen from the order dated 13.12.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 1606 of 2004. 3. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in M.V. O.P. No. 1606 of 2004. 4. The 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the mother of the deceased Budi Ravi and they have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Tribunal claiming compensation an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the death of Budi Ravi, who is the husband of the 1st Claimant and the son of the 2nd claimant. The case of the claimants is that on 07.09.2004 when the deceased proceeded from Marripalem on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 32 C 9264 towards old Karasa, Visakhapatnam and at about 10.30 P.M., when he reached old Karasa Marripalem, the crime lorry bearing No. AP 31 V 8127 of the 1st Respondent coming from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased as a result he sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and on the basis of the report lodged by one Y.K. Prabhakar, the V town Traffic police registered a case in Cr. No. 94 of 2004 under Section 304 -- A of I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry. 5. The 1st Respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent -- insurer filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following issues for consideration: 1. 5. The 1st Respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent -- insurer filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No. AP 31 V 8127 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R.1 to R.3 documents were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle of the 1st respondent and as such the deceased sustained head injury and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 8. Heard the argument of both the learned counsel and perused the record. 9. Basing on the grounds of the appeal and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant counsel in MACMA No. 2486 of 2012, it can be seen that it is strongly contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding excess compensation amount by taking annual income of the deceased Rs. 1,50,000/- and grossly erred in considering Ex. A.9 income tax returns as the returns were submitted after the death of the deceased and the Tribunal further erred in not apportioning the negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle and the accident was occurred head on collision and it is also contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium and it also erred in awarding an amount Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head love and affection and also erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- under the head of loss of estate and also grossly erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, when the act provides only Rs. 2,000/-. 10. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium and it also erred in awarding an amount Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head love and affection and also erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- under the head of loss of estate and also grossly erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, when the act provides only Rs. 2,000/-. 10. A careful reading of the grounds of appeal in MACMA No. 2486 of 2012, suggests it infers that the appeal grounds were drafted under the impression that the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But as seen from the record that claimants made claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. On the other hand, MACMA No. 4280 of 2004 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal failed to take future earnings of the deceased when the deceased was young and well educated person and the Tribunal erred in granting interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of granting interest @ 12% per annum. 12. Now the point for determination is, whether the Tribunal has awarded the just compensation to the claimants and correctly appreciated the evidence on record in fixing the liability on the insurer. 13. After considering the material on record and the submissions of both the learned counsel, this court is of view that the death of the deceased on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident is not disputed before the Tribunal as well as this Court. 14. The claimants have placed Ex. A.1 -- attested copy of F.I.R., Ex. A.2 -- attested copy of post mortem certificate, Ex. A.3 -- Inquest report and Ex. A.4 -- attested copy of M.V.I. report to establish the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants have also relied on Ex. A.5 -- legal heir certificate dated 08.01.2004 issued by M.R.O., Visakhapatnam to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The wife of the deceased who is the 1st petitioner is examined as P.W. 1 to establish the facts pleaded in the petition. The claimants also examined one Y.K. Prabhakar as P.W. 2 to prove the manner of the accident. The wife of the deceased who is the 1st petitioner is examined as P.W. 1 to establish the facts pleaded in the petition. The claimants also examined one Y.K. Prabhakar as P.W. 2 to prove the manner of the accident. After considering the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, though the insurance company has not placed any evidence to establish the deceased also contributed to the accident. However it is contended that the offending vehicle came to into opposite direction and dashed the motorcyclist and as such it is a case of head on-collision. This Court is of the view that simply because while the deceased was proceeding on the road and the vehicle coming on in opposite direction dashed against him, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be considered that the accident occurred due to head on-collision. 15. On the other hand the driver of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident. For the reasons best known to the insurer, it has not chosen to examine the driver of the offending vehicle. A plain reading of the order and the material placed on record does not show that the insurer has taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle as a witness in support of its case. 16. It is not the case of insurer that its staff or officials witnessed the accident and it has also not explained its source of information regarding the manner of the accident. After careful reading of the material on record, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has given valid reasons for coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. As rightly pointed by the tribunal though P.W. 2, who is said to be an eye witness to the occurrence, was cross-examined by the counsel for insurance company nothing is elicited to shake his evidence in cross-examination. After careful reading of the evidence, this Court is also of opinion that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a correct conclusion. 17. After careful reading of the evidence, this Court is also of opinion that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a correct conclusion. 17. After considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court is of the view that there is some considerable force in their submissions. First of all, this Court is inclined to consider the submissions made by the insurer. 18. As seen from the order it is observed that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium and also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head love and affection and also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- under the head loss of estate. 19. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Panay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 SC, the claimants are entitled for compensation Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Here coming to the funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/-, which requires to be enhanced. It is further observed in Pranay Sethi's case referred supra, the aforementioned amounts should be enhanced @ 10% per annum for every 3 years. 20. It is relevant to mention that the Judgment in Pranay Sethi's case was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Thus a sum of Rs. 16,500/- has to be awarded towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- has to be awarded towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs. 44,000/- has to be awarded under loss of spousal consortium. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has awarded excessive amounts under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and under the head of love and affection and those amounts are to be scale down. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer also brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal has taken into consideration of Ex. A.2 post mortem certificate which shows the age of the deceased is 30 years. The said finding given by the Tribunal is not assailed by either of the parties. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer also brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal has taken into consideration of Ex. A.2 post mortem certificate which shows the age of the deceased is 30 years. The said finding given by the Tribunal is not assailed by either of the parties. However, the observations of the Tribunal that as per II schedule of the Act, the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased is 18. In Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 , it was observed by the Apex Court that the relevant multiplier, for the person age group of 26 to 30 years, is 17. In view of the same, this Court is of opinion that the annual income of the deceased is to be multiplied with 17 instead of 18. It is contended that in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal has not properly considered the earnings of the deceased. But during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has not questioned the same. However, this Court has considered the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and it can be seen from the evidence on record that the deceased used to execute contract works. Ex. A.8 is the bunch of orders relating to the work orders issued to the Ravi Kumar (deceased). Ex. A.9 is the bunch of income tax returns pertaining to the deceased and Ex. A.10 is the certificate issued by Garrison Engineering Novel Depot dated 09.03.2022 relating to execution of work by the deceased. The Tribunal has appreciated those documents at para 10 of the Judgment. It is relevant to note that the insurer has also placed Exs. R.1 to R.3 attested copies of income tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Through the evidence of R.W. 2, these documents were marked. 22. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the respondents have failed to disprove the income source of the deceased by relying on Exs. R.1 to R.3 documents. After appreciation of the documentary evidence Exs. R.1 to R.3 and the evidence of R.W. 2, the Tribunal at para 13 of page 5 observed that even according to the respondents, the income tax returns Exs. R.1 to R.3 marked through the evidence of R.W. 2 for the said years is nearly Rs. R.1 to R.3 documents. After appreciation of the documentary evidence Exs. R.1 to R.3 and the evidence of R.W. 2, the Tribunal at para 13 of page 5 observed that even according to the respondents, the income tax returns Exs. R.1 to R.3 marked through the evidence of R.W. 2 for the said years is nearly Rs. 1,50,000/- and therefore, it can safely be presumed that the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death is @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. 23. After careful reading of the documents relied and the judgment of the learned Tribunal this court is of the view only basing on the documents relied on by the insurance company, the learned tribunal has given a finding that the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death @ Rs. 1,50,000/-. At this stage, I feel it is relevant to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned tribunal grossly erred in not awarding future prospectus. 24. In Pranay Seti's case referred 2017 ACJ 2700 SC supra, the Apex Court held that In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. A reading of the Tribunal judgment would show that future prospectus is not awarded to the claimants. By following the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, this Court is of the view that the claimants are also entitled 40% of their earnings towards future prospectus. Thus, after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses from Rs. 1,50,000/- yearly income of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family works out to Rs. 1,00,000/-. When 40% thereof is added towards future prospectus which works out to Rs. 1,40,000/-. When the same is multiplied with the multiplier 17, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 1,40,000/- x 17 = Rs. 23,80,000/. This apart the claimants are entitled to conventional sum (Rs. 16,500/- for loss of estate, Rs. 16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- for loss of spousal consortium). 25. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under: 26. 1,40,000/- x 17 = Rs. 23,80,000/. This apart the claimants are entitled to conventional sum (Rs. 16,500/- for loss of estate, Rs. 16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- for loss of spousal consortium). 25. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under: 26. Accordingly, MACMA No. 2486 of 2012 filed by the insurer stands dismissed and MACMA No. 4280 of 2014 filed by the claimants is partly allowed by enhancing quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- to Rs. 24,57,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The insurer is directed to deposit balance amount from out of the award Rs. 24,57,000/- along with interest to the credit of M.V.O.P. No. 1606 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Court, Visakhapatnam, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In other respects, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs in both these appeals. 27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.