ORDER : 1) This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the act of 1988”) by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (CG) in Claim case No.91/2018 awarding a compensation of Rs.7,49,000/- in favour of appellants/claimants herein. 2) The appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of Act of 1988 inter-alia pleaded that their son Nilkanth was coming to house from village Navagaon Khurd through NH 30 riding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/05 K/8765, at about 4:30 pm offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG/ 04 HD/3431 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1/driver dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which, he suffered injuries on his person and was taken to District Hospital Dhamtari and thereafter looking to the seriousness of the injury, he was referred to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari and thereafter for better treatment he was referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur where he remained admitted for 24 days and thereafter he was referred to Mekahara Hospital, where he died during treatment on 13.02.2018. It was pleaded by claimants/appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was a 29 years old healthy young man who was staying in Gram Panchayat Sonewara. At the time of the incident he was working as an employment assistant and computer operator and was earning an effective income of about Rs.5000/- per month. Appellants/claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased and claimed Rs.72,50,000/- as total compensation against the respondents. 3) Respondent No.1/driver cum owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and resisted the claim application. It was pleaded that in his written statement that the deceased was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he himself dashed to the offending vehicle for which he was himself responsible. He also pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and if any liability is found, the same shall be the duty of the insurance company to make the payment. 4) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the insurance policy. 4) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the insurance policy. Hence the insurance company is not responsible to pay any compensation amount. The insurance Company took a plea of contributory negligence and pleaded that they may be exonerated from payment of compensation. 5) The learned tribunal on the basis of above broad pleadings framed as many as 7 issues and all the issues decided in favour of appellants/claimants which under challenged by none before this Court. The challenge in this appeal is to the amount of compensation which has been awarded to the tune of Rs.7,49,000/- by learned tribunal is on the lower side. 6) Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/claimants submits that though according to the pleadings in the claim application, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5000/-, however looking to his qualification and the Act of 1988 is benevolent legislation and the Court has to determine facts and circumstances and evidence that just compensation is awarded to the claimants/appellants. He further submits that even if the income of the deceased is on the lower side, the learned tribunal and the Court can award more than it was claimed in the claim application. He further submits that parents lost their son of 29 years, in that sense just amount of compensation may be awarded by this Court. His income ought to have taken as Rs.7000/- onwards for the purposes of determining the compensation. To buttress his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in cases of Smt. Meena Pawaia & Ors. Vs. Ashraf Ali & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1083 and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 7) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the submissions and submits that as per claim application, the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/-. Once the income of the deceased is said to be Rs.5000/-, there is no need to compute compensation on the notional income enhancing monthly salary of deceased. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the submissions and submits that as per claim application, the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/-. Once the income of the deceased is said to be Rs.5000/-, there is no need to compute compensation on the notional income enhancing monthly salary of deceased. He further submits that the deceased was working as an employment assistant and computer operator in the village panchayat there would be the salary of Rs.5000/- which need not to be enhanced, simply because the appellants/ claimants are seeking more compensation. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa (Supra) in Para 21 held that there is no restrictions under the Act of 1988 to award compensation amounts exceeding the claim amount by tribunal/ Court. Para 21 is quoted hereinbelow:- “21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/ Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition. 10) Similarly in case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. And and Anr. reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “2. …….. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. …….. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. 11) The accident has occurred on 21.01.2018, the appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was earning Rs.5000/- as computer operator and employment assistant in village Panchayat Sonewara. Though the learned tribunal rejected the contention that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- working as a computer operator on the ground that no document to that effect has been filed. However, considering the educational qualification of the deceased as he was Post Graduated in Hindi and also Post Graduated in Computer application considered his monthly income to Rs.5000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meena Pawaia (Supra) while dealing with the case observed that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 21-22 years and that he was a student of 3rd year in civil engineering and observed that the deceased was studying in 3rd/4th semester of civil engineering, he cannot be considered worse than the labourers/skilled labourers and enhanced the compensation in that case. Admittedly, the deceased in the case in hand, was quite educated having Post Graduation degree in Hindi and also in Computer application, hence naturally he could have a bright future and the income of Rs.5000/- taken by learned tribunal appears to be on the lower side, as held in case of Nagppa (Supra) that the Court/Tribunal can award more compensation than what has been claimed and in view of judgment of K. Suresh (Supra), the compensation has to be just compensation. 12) Considering that the deceased Nilkanth Dhruv on the date of accident was aged about 29 years, keeping in view the nature of his job his educational qualification, this Court has no hesitation to hold his monthly income to Rs.10,000/-. 12) Considering that the deceased Nilkanth Dhruv on the date of accident was aged about 29 years, keeping in view the nature of his job his educational qualification, this Court has no hesitation to hold his monthly income to Rs.10,000/-. Taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there has to be 40% addition of his income towards future prospects. This apart ½ deduction is required to be done for personal expenses of deceased. Taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S.N. Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly income of the deceased 10,000/- 2. Future prospect @ 40% 4000/- 3. Total Monthly income 14000/- 4. ½ deduction towards personal expenses of deceased 7000/- 5. Net Annual Income 7000x12=84,000/- 6. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency 14,28,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 8. Loss of estate 15,000/- 9. Towards filial consortium to appellants 80,000/- Total compensation 15,38,000/- 13) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.7,49,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,38,000./-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,49,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 7,89,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhance amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit of the same, Rs.3,50,000/- each shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of appellants/claimants. The remaining amount shall be disbursed to them through bank transactions/account payee cheque. The appellants/claimants would be entitled to receive the interest accrued on the fixed deposit. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 14) Appeal is partly allowed.