JUDGMENT : This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated 12.01.2016 in M.V.OP.No.416 of 2014, on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District (for short “Tribunal”). The present appeal is filed by the appellant, who was arrayed as second respondent in the above M.V.O.P. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in the capacity of claimants in the above M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2014 as parents of the deceased viz., Nallipogu Thirumalesu, laid a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on the ground that on 03.05.2014 the deceased on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of Tipper bearing No.A.P.26-TB-8861 (“offending vehicle” for short) met with death. 4. The case of the claimants as set out in their claim before the learned Tribunal is that Nallipogu Thirumalesu was aged 23 years at the time of accident. He was the son of the claimants. He was working as a seasonal worker in Tobacco board and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of six months. For the rest of the period of six months, he used to get income of Rs.10,000/- per month on Dish business (Cable net). On 03.05.2014 afternoon he left his house to go to Atmakur. At about 5-00 p.m., when he was returning to his house on Motorcycle and when he reached near Petrol Bunk, D.C. Palli Village, the driver of the offending vehicle driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the motorcycle from its behind. On account of the said accident, Thirumalesu fell down and received crush injuries and died. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, lost their affectionate family member and also earning member. A case in Crime No.51 of 2014 of Marripadu Police Station under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered and investigated into. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation claimed by the claimants. 5. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, lost their affectionate family member and also earning member. A case in Crime No.51 of 2014 of Marripadu Police Station under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered and investigated into. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation claimed by the claimants. 5. The first respondent is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, who filed counter before the learned Tribunal contending in substance that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent and claim against him is not maintainable and is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The second respondent/insurance company before the learned Tribunal filed counter opposing the claim and the contention in substance is that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, driven his vehicle in normal speed. The deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.A.P.26-AH-1070. He suddenly slowed down the vehicle without any signal, as such, the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties and that the claim made by the claimants is excessive. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues: (1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper bearing Registration No.A.P.26-TB-8861 and whether it is resulted the death of Nallipogu Thirumalesu? (2) Whether the driver of the Tipper bearing Registration No.A.P.26-TB-8861 possessed valid driving license or not as on the date of material date of accident? (3) Whether the claimants are entitled compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? (4) To what relief? 8. The claimants before the learned Tribunal examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. The contesting respondents did not let in any oral evidence, but the second respondent got marked Ex.B.1, the insurance policy bearing No.3379/00851733/000/01, with consent. 9. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues as against the respondents and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.10,84,000/- as compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally and with a direction to deposit the said compensation and that claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at equal rights. The learned Tribunal awarded the interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful second respondent/insurance company in the capacity of appellant filed the present appeal challenging the award, dated 12.01.2016. 10. Now in deciding this MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the award, dated 12.01.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2014, on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? (2) To what relief? Point No.1: 11. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that according to the grounds of appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation. Under the head loss of future prospectus, the Tribunal wrongly considered 100% as future prospectus. He would submit that insofar as the future prospects are concerned and if the claimants are entitled for any future prospects, it should be not more than 50%. On this count itself, the award of the learned Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. The claimants did not prove the income of the deceased properly, but the Tribunal considered the lumpsum amount towards monthly income. The Tribunal did not look into the fact that the deceased was not working for the entire 12 months but was working only for half of the year. Viewing from any angle, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, as such, it is liable to be interfered with. 12. Sri P. Siva Sai Dattatreya, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, would submit that according to the case of the claimants, the deceased was working as a seasonal worker and getting Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of six months and for the rest of the period, he was working as a worker in the Cable T.V. set up of P.W.3 and was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants examined P.W.3 to prove the income on Cable T.V. work and further got marked the identity card to show that the deceased was also working as a seasonal worker in the Tobacco board. The claimants examined P.W.3 to prove the income on Cable T.V. work and further got marked the identity card to show that the deceased was also working as a seasonal worker in the Tobacco board. Overlooking this, the learned Tribunal considered the income of Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded future prospects of Rs.5,000/- per month and deducted half of the amount i.e., Rs.5,000/- per month toward personal expenses and only considered Rs.5,000/- per month as net income of the deceased. At any rate, the compensation that was awarded according to the claimants was also on lesser side and however, they did not file any appeal, as such, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 13. P.W.1 before the learned Tribunal is no other than the mother of the deceased, who got filed chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. P.W.2 was the witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 was one Revuru Ramanareddy under whom the deceased was alleged to have worked and earned Rs.10,000/- per month. 14. Insofar as findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the findings of the learned Tribunal are not under challenge in the present appeal. The challenge is made to the award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal awarded 100% of the future prospects. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be around 50% but not 100%. 15. Keeping in view, now this Court has to look into as to whether the compensation that was awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants was a reasonable basis. There is no dispute that the deceased was working as a seasonal worker in a Tobacco board. The contention of the appellant is that the deceased was only a seasonal worker and he was not working for the entire period. It is to be noted that even according to the claimants, the deceased was working as a seasonal worker only for six months. For the rest of the period he was working as a worker in a Cable TV set up of P.W.3. It is to be noted that even according to the claimants, the deceased was working as a seasonal worker only for six months. For the rest of the period he was working as a worker in a Cable TV set up of P.W.3. It is no doubt true that if the evidence of P.W.3 is considered with reference to his answers in cross examination that he did not file any document to show his business and further any document to show the salary that was being paid to the deceased, his evidence is not at all convincing. The appellant did not dispute the factum of the deceased working for a period of six months in Tobacco board. It is improbable to assume that for the rest of the period, he would have remained idle. However, the fact remained is that there was no definite proof as to the earnings of the deceased. It is a case where the claimants made a pleading that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of six months as a seasonal worker in the Tobacco board and further he was working as a worker in the Cable TV set up of P.W.3 for the rest of the period and he was getting Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Apart from this, there is no dispute that according to Ex.A.5-Study-cum- Conduct Certificate issued by Dr.S.R.J. Degree College, Atmakur, the deceased studied first, second and third year Degree. The claimants did not explain as to whether the deceased passed the Degree examination and obtained a graduate certificate. However, the fact remained is that the deceased who was in the age group of 23 years younger in age was getting some income. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased in lumpsum as that of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is no doubt true that the learned Tribunal awarded 100% of the future prospects by relying upon the decisions in (1) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Gopali and others, 2012 ACJ 3131 and (2) Munnalal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 ACJ 1985 . 16. As seen from Gopali’s case (supra), it is a case where the deceased was working as a permanent employee i.e., Machine Operator in National Engineering Company, Jaipur. So, he was a permanent employee. 16. As seen from Gopali’s case (supra), it is a case where the deceased was working as a permanent employee i.e., Machine Operator in National Engineering Company, Jaipur. So, he was a permanent employee. The learned Tribunal did not look into the fact here that the deceased was not at all a permanent employee. 17. Turning to another decision in Munnalal Jain’s case (supra), the deceased was self-employed Pandit. In the above said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered to allow the future prospects for 50%. 18. As evident from the award of the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal awarded 100% of Rs.5,000/- per month as that of future prospects. In my considered view, the awarding of compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month was not on reasonable basis and further awarding future prospects 100% was also not on reasonable basis and it was on excessive lines. It is to be noted that though there is no cross appeal filed by the Tribunal, but, when to the naked eye, it is clear that the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased on the lesser side, but awarded future prospects on higher side, this Court is not prevented from deciding the reasonableness under the heads of compensation. The death of the deceased was in the year 2014. Though the claimants were not able to prove the income of the deceased with certainty, but considering the period of accident i.e., in the year 2014 and considering the fact that even a person, who was working on manual labour, would have earned around Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded and ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as that of Rs.6,500/- per month which is on reasonable basis. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the income of the deceased as that of Rs.6,500/-. 19. There is no dispute that in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, AIR 2009 SC 3104 when the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the rest of 50% is to be considered towards contribution to the family. If that is done, the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses of 50% is to be considered as Rs.3,250/-. If that is done, the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses of 50% is to be considered as Rs.3,250/-. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount towards future prospects can be 50% because the deceased was in the age of 23 years i.e., less than the age of 50 years. The appellant did not contend that the claimants were not entitled to future prospects. Their grievance is that the learned Tribunal awarded excessive amount under this head. 20. It is to be noted that in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the future prospects where the deceased was on fixed salary or the self-employed was 40% if the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Here the deceased was in the age group of 23 years. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased on fixed basis as that of Rs.5,000/- which is interfered with by this Court as above. Here the income of the deceased as fixed by this Court is Rs.3,250/- after deducting the personal expenses of 50%. So, 40% of the future prospectus out of Rs.3,250/- would come to Rs.1,300/-. So, Rs.1,300/- + Rs.3,250/- = Rs.4,550/-. Therefore, the annual income is to be considered as Rs.4,550/- x 12 = Rs.54,600/-. There is no dispute that in view of the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (3 supra), the proper multiplier for the age group of 23 years is 18. If the multiplier of 18 is applied to Rs.54,600/-, the loss of earnings which would have been contributed towards family of the claimants by the deceased is Rs.9,82,800/-. 21. It is to be noted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constitutional Bench decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (4 supra) standardized the amounts under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate as that of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,00/-. In this case the period of accident was in the year 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harpreet Kaur and others vs. Mohinder Yadav and others AIR 2023 SC 111 decided the matter pertaining to the original claim of 2005 and appeal of 2007. In this case the period of accident was in the year 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harpreet Kaur and others vs. Mohinder Yadav and others AIR 2023 SC 111 decided the matter pertaining to the original claim of 2005 and appeal of 2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered the judgment on 15.12.2022 applying the benefit of Pranay Sethi’s case (4 supra) judgment, even to the accident that was occurred in the year 2004. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. If this amount of Rs.30,000/- is added to Rs.9,82,800/-, it would amount to Rs.10,12,800/-. Hence, the award needs to be interfered with reducing the quantum of compensation from that of Rs.10,83,000/- to Rs.10,12,800/-. 22. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this MACMA is liable to be allowed in part. Point No.2: 23. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs.10,12,800/- from that of Rs.10,83,000/-. The rest of the MACMA shall stand dismissed confirming the other aspects of the award in the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.