JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 in M.V. O.P. No.590 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (for short ‘the tribunal’), Srikakulam, wherein the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants filed M.V.O.P. claiming compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents, for the death of Nageswara Rao, who is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of claimants 4 and 5, in a road accident that occurred on 14.07.2009 while the said Nageswara Rao was riding the motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 H 5275 on which two girls were sitting as pillion riders, at 3.30 PM when he reached the outskirts of Ichapuram, a tanker lorry bearing No.NL 01/D 4416 came in opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result he fell down and sustained multiple injuries, then he was admitted in Government Hospital, Ichapuram and later he was referred MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, on the same day he died in the hospital. 4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the tanker lorry, remained exparte and the respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the tanker lorry has filed written statement contending that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased, who suddenly came to the middle of the road and there no negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry. 5. The tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 7. The 2nd respondent has not aggrieved with the judgment passed by the tribunal and therefore, this Court need not go into other aspects of the case except the issue of enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 8. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 7. The 2nd respondent has not aggrieved with the judgment passed by the tribunal and therefore, this Court need not go into other aspects of the case except the issue of enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 8. Now the points for considerations are, 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances of the case and it requires enhancement? 2. If so, what extent? POINT No.1: 9. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased as claimed in the petition is not disputed. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant herself got examined as P.W.1, the pillion rider was examined as P.W.2 to prove the accident in question and also to prove about the death of the deceased in the accident got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was let in. 10. By taking into consideration of Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.2-charge sheet, the tribunal came to the conclusion that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident happened. The claimants have contended that the deceased was doing mason work and used to earn an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month. The 2nd respondent has not disputed the occupation of the deceased. However, as rightly observed by the tribunal, no evidence is placed on record in support of the earnings of deceased. 11. In Lakshmi Devi and others vs. Mohhammad Tabber, 2008 ACJ 1488 , the Apex Court has laid down a principle that, in today’s world, even a common labour can very easily earn Rs.100/- per day. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the tribunal ought not to have assessed the annual income @ Rs.25,000/- per annum. As such this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 12. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Panay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) 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. A reading of the Tribunal judgment would show that future prospectus is not awarded to the claimants. The finding of the tribunal that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 35 is not disputed. 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 the earnings of deceased towards future prospectus. Thus, an amount of Rs.4,200/- towards monthly can be taken into consideration. The claimants, who are the wife, children and the parents, were dependants of the deceased and hence the 1/4th of the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, then the contribution of the deceased to the family works out to Rs.3,150/-. When the same is multiplied with the multiplier ‘16’, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.6,04,800/-. That apart the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- for loss of spousal consortium, under conventional head in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under : Towards loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.3,150x12x 16) Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Total Rs.6,81,800/- 13. The claimants filed their claim for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In Ramla vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No.11495 of 2018] the Apex Court held that there is no restriction to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed and as such in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.6,81,800/- exceeding the claimed amount. However, the claimants shall pay the requisite court fee over and above the compensation awarded. 14. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 , at paragraph 13, the Apex Court held as under : “13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimant as regards the rate of interest. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 , at paragraph 13, the Apex Court held as under : “13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimant as regards the rate of interest. The tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court” Hence, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the rate of interest should be 7.5% per annum. POINT No.3 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to an amount of Rs.6,81,800/- (Rupees six lakhs, eighty one thousand and eight hundred only) together with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent - insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount along with interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deduction of the amount already deposited. Out of the enhanced compensation an amount, 1st claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with interest and claimants 2 and 3 each are entitled to an amount of Rs.55,900/- (Rupees fifty five thousand and nine hundred only). In other respects, the judgment passed by the tribunal holds good. The claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest in accordance with the tribunal order, on deposit. Claimants shall pay the deficit court fee over and above the compensation amount claimed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.