JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. These are the two appeals filed assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.40 of 2017 decided on 19.03.2018. 2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal on clear application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has awarded compensation of Rs. 66,34,500/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum. The liability of payment of compensation has been saddled upon the respondents before the Tribunal. The respondents before the Tribunal are the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the TSRTC') and the respondent No. 3 was the driver of the offending vehicle involved with the accident. 3. M.A.C.M.A. No.1817 of 2018 is an appeal filed by the TSRTC assailing the award of the Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A. No.734 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement. 4. Given the fact that the challenge is arising out of the same award and the same evidence have to be considered and appreciated, we are proceeding to decide the two appeals by this common judgment. 5. The brief facts which led to filing of the two appeals are that the deceased K.Satyanarayana, was 52 years and was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector Police in the Special Branch of Veldanda Circle, Mahaboob Nagar District. On traveling on his two wheeler motor bike bearing registration No.AP 22 AM 7433 was hit by the bus belonging to the TSRTC bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 3237. As result of the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries to which he later succumbed. The matter was reported to the Police Station Amangal, Mahaboob Nagar, wherein Crime No. 296 of 2016 was registered and the driver of the offending bus namely, Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o.Late A.Papaiah, was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The wife, children and also the parents of the deceased have filed the claim application before the Tribunal below which is registered as M.V.O.P. No.40 of 2017. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the award holding the Corporation and the driver of the offending bus jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 66,34,500/- with interest @ 7.5%. It is this award which is under challenge by both claimants as also by the respondents. 7. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the award holding the Corporation and the driver of the offending bus jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 66,34,500/- with interest @ 7.5%. It is this award which is under challenge by both claimants as also by the respondents. 7. The appeal by the TSRTC i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.1817 of 2018 has been filed on the solitary ground that the Tribunal below has not properly appreciated the evidence of RW-1 i.e., driver of the offending vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the said witness RW-1 has made a very categorical statement before the court below that there was a great element of negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner. This evidence, according to the counsel for the Corporation has not been properly considered and appreciated. The learned Tribunal therefore, ought to have assessed contributory negligence towards the deceased and should have reduced the liability so far as the present appellant/corporation is concerned accordingly. 8. However, on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence which has come before the Tribunal, there does not appear to be any corroborative evidence lead by the Corporation so far as the contention of their being a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Except for the averment of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., R.W.1 there does not seem to be any other substantial evidence which has been led by the Corporation in support of their contention. 9. In view of the same, we do not find any substantial ground made available for accepting the appeal filed by the Corporation and the appeal of the Corporation i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.1817 of 2018 therefore being devoid of merit and deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. 10. Coming to the appeal filed by the claimants, the learned counsel for the appellant have contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of the deceased while quantifying the compensation and has unnecessarily taken the net income reflected in the salary certificate as the base for quantification of compensation. According to the learned counsel except for the deduction of income tax, there could not have been any other deduction which would have been made from the gross salary received by the deceased. 11. According to the learned counsel except for the deduction of income tax, there could not have been any other deduction which would have been made from the gross salary received by the deceased. 11. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal also has wrongly granted 10% as the future income, whereas in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Corporation v. Pranay Sethi (2017 AACJ 2700 (SC)), the future prospects in respect of government employee in the age group of 50-60 ought to have been 15% rather than 10% as has been awarded. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has also not granted consortium to each of the claimants and to the said extent also the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. 12. Having heard the contentions put forth on behalf of counsel for the claimants, it would be relevant to take a note of the Tribunal viz-a-viz the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and also in case of the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation AIR 2009 SC 3104 , if we look into the salary certificate of the deceased Ex-A7, admittedly the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 76,416/- and the net payable amount was Rs. 65,406/-. However, from the documents which have been produced before this bench, it has been revealed that the deceased had paid an amount of Rs. 65,729/- towards income tax for the assessment year 2016-2017 i.e., the year in which the deceased met with an accident and succumbed. If we divide the said Rs. 65,729/- by 12 months of the year it would come to Rs. 5,477/- and if the said Rs. 5,477/- is deducted from Rs. 76,416/-, the salary amount would come to Rs. 70,939/- which would be the income that would be taken as the base for the purpose of quantification of the compensation. 13. Similarly, if we apply the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, the future prospects in respect of a government employee which in the instant case, the deceased was at his age i.e., 52 years would come to 15% rather than 10% that has been taken by the Tribunal, which would come to Rs. Similarly, if we apply the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, the future prospects in respect of a government employee which in the instant case, the deceased was at his age i.e., 52 years would come to 15% rather than 10% that has been taken by the Tribunal, which would come to Rs. 10,640/-, if added, the said figure with Rs. 70,939/- it comes to Rs. 81,580/-. The said amount if multiplied into 12 months of the year would come to Rs. 9,78,960/- which if multiplied with the multiplier of 11 which has been rightly applied by the Tribunal, the amount would come to Rs. 1,07,68,560/- of which ¼ is deducted towards personal expenses, as the total dependents were six, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 80,76,420/-. 14. Taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Pranay Sethi, each of the claimants would also be entitled for an amount of compensation towards consortium at Rs. 40,000/- i.e., 40,000 X 6 which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. In addition, there will be an additional compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus total compensation payable to the claimants would become Rs. 83,46,420/- which would be the compensation payable to the claimants instead of Rs. 66,34,500/-. The remaining part of the award as granted by the Tribunal i.e., so far as the rate of interest, as also the apportionment part is concerned, the same would remain intact. The appellant Corporation is expected to ensure that the difference of amount is paid at the earliest or within a period of 45 days from today. 15. As a consequence, the appeal of the Corporation i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.1817 of 2018 stands dismissed and the appeal of claimants i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.734 of 2022 stands allowed. 16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.