JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 04.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.262 of 2003 granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount, against respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., when Venkata Raghava Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) along with one Pitchaiah Gupta was standing near Lakshmi Talkies road margin, Gurazala, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5U 5950 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased-Raghava Rao. The lorry ran over the deceased due to which, he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the said accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry and based on the complaint lodged by the said A.Pitchaiah Gupta, a case in Crime No.8 of 2003 was registered by the Station House Officer, Gurazala Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted to the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. (ii) The deceased was unmarried and was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and he used to earn Rs.72,000/- per annum as one of the partners of M/s. Sambasiva Seeds Centre at Gurazala. The parents of the deceased i.e., 1st and 2nd claimants and unmarried sisters i.e., 3rd and 4th claimants filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- before the Tribunal on account of his death in the road traffic accident. (iii) T.Visweswara Rao, who was the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent firm, died. The 3rd respondent was impleaded as owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 and was remained ex parte. (iii) T.Visweswara Rao, who was the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent firm, died. The 3rd respondent was impleaded as owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 and was remained ex parte. (iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurer filed a written statement contending inter alia and denying all the averments made in the petition including the manner of the accident, age and income of the deceased. It is further averred that the petitioners are put to strict proof that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Either the first respondent or the third respondent, in collusion with the petitioners/claimants, did not inform about the accident, with a view to cause loss to this respondent. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the lorry bearing No.AP 5 U 5950 was not insured with the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company at the time of the accident. It is further averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. This respondent, therefore, prays to dismiss the petition. (v) Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry AP 5U 5950? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? (vi) In order to establish the claim of the petitioners, at the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked. No oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. (vii) On appreciation of the evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal applying the multiplier of ‘15’. S.No. Head of Compensation Amount of Compensation awarded in Rs. 1 For Loss of earnings 1,44,000/- 2 For Transportation and Funeral Expenses 6,000/- Total 1,50,000/- (viii) Being dissatisfied, the appellants/claimants have knocked the doors of this Court by filing this appeal against the Award dated 04.05.2006. 4. S.No. Head of Compensation Amount of Compensation awarded in Rs. 1 For Loss of earnings 1,44,000/- 2 For Transportation and Funeral Expenses 6,000/- Total 1,50,000/- (viii) Being dissatisfied, the appellants/claimants have knocked the doors of this Court by filing this appeal against the Award dated 04.05.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month by ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which clearly indicates that the deceased was one of the working partners of M/s.Sambasiva Seeds Centre, Gurajala and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error in deducting Rs.700/- towards personal expenses of the deceased from the assessed income of Rs.1,500/- per month. Further, he would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error in not awarding compensation under the conventional heads by following the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgments. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation, even by considering the deceased to be an unskilled labour drawing minimum wage of Rs.150/- per a day. Further, he would submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is improper and contrary to the law and facts of the case. Therefore, urged the Court for enhancing the compensation to a reasonable sum by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and is not justified, which called for interference of this Court in this appeal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, or requires interference of this Court for enhancement? 7. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents available on record. POINT: 8. 7. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents available on record. POINT: 8. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950, to which the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed in its Judgment at Para No.6 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950, which caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. 9. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the accident had taken place on 04.02.2003 when the deceased and A.Pitchaiah Gupta were standing near Lakshmi Talkie road margin, Gurajala, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased due to which he died on the spot. The claimants are claiming that the deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of his death, as he was one of the partners of M/s.Sambasiva Seeds Centre, Gurajala. But, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants did not choose to produce any document to prove that the deceased was one of the partners of the said firm and held that the deceased may earn Rs.1,500/- per month on an average. 10. The learned Tribunal committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased. Even if he is a labourer/coolie, at least, he may get Rs.150/- per a day. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the deceased-Raghava Rao can be treated as a labour/coolie and his monthly income as on the date of the accident can be taken into consideration as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein, at Para Nos.13 & 15, it was held as follows: “13. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein, at Para Nos.13 & 15, it was held as follows: “13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14……………. 15. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to 150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4500/-.” 11. Following the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa’s case (supra), the notional income of the deceased can safely be re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month, by treating him as a labour/coolie. Accordingly, this Court fixed the notional income of the deceased as a coolie/labour in the year 2003 at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, there is no reason for the Tribunal to determine the monthly earning of the deceased to be a sum of Rs.1,500/-, in contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment referred to above. 12. Accordingly, this Court fixed the notional income of the deceased as a coolie/labour in the year 2003 at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, there is no reason for the Tribunal to determine the monthly earning of the deceased to be a sum of Rs.1,500/-, in contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment referred to above. 12. To grant compensation under various heads, now it is necessary to refer to the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein, at Para-18, it was held as follows: “18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.” 13. A perusal of Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.A.5 viz., Certified copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Post-mortem Certificate and Charge Sheet respectively, would show that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was between ‘21-22’ years and he was unmarried. Based on the said documents, this Court has taken into consideration the age of the deceased as ‘22’ years. Since the deceased was a labour and he was between the age group of 21-25 years by the date of accident, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier ‘15’ instead of ‘18’, contrary to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), wherein, the loss of dependency was thus, reassessed at para-42 of the decision, which reads as under: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 14. In the instant case, evidently, the deceased was survived by parents and two unmarried sisters, who are the appellants/claimants. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members is four. According to Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On this aspect, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), at paras-30, 31 and 32, is as under: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third”. 15. In the instant case, the deceased was unmarried by the date of the accident and 1st and 2nd petitioners/claimants are the parents of the deceased, 3rd petitioner/claimant is the sister of the deceased who was a major and 4th petitioner/claimant was a minor represented by her mother i.e., 1st petitioner/claimant. 16. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On an overall view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/-, the annual income would be worked out to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/-). 50% of the said amount would be arrived at Rs.27,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 50% =Rs.27,000/-). After deducting the same towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income of the deceased would be arrived at Rs.27,000/- (Rs.54,000/- (-) Rs.27,000/- =Rs.27,000/-). 17. 50% of the said amount would be arrived at Rs.27,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 50% =Rs.27,000/-). After deducting the same towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income of the deceased would be arrived at Rs.27,000/- (Rs.54,000/- (-) Rs.27,000/- =Rs.27,000/-). 17. As the deceased was found to be ‘22’ years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘18’ instead of ‘15’ in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). Having applied the said principles and the multiplier, the loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs.4,86,000/-(Rs.27,000/- x 18 = Rs.4,86,000/-). This Court finds that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under loss of dependency. A reading of Tribunal’s award makes it clear that the learned Tribunal’s approach does not accord at all with current judicial opinion. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’, which would be substantive. 18. In the instant case, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, in view of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC). Funeral Expenses: 19. Under this conventional head, the claimants are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case. Loss of Estate: 20. Under this conventional head, the claimants are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case. Loss of Consortium: 21. Besides the above heads, the mother and father of the deceased i.e., 1st & 2nd petitioners are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of consortium under the head of ‘Filial Consortium’ as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Case (supra). 22. Loss of Consortium: 21. Besides the above heads, the mother and father of the deceased i.e., 1st & 2nd petitioners are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of consortium under the head of ‘Filial Consortium’ as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Case (supra). 22. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 23. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions supra, and the calculations made there-above, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants, is re-assessed as under. S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded in Rs. 1 Loss of Dependency 4,86,000.00 (Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/- x 50% x 18 = Rs.4,86,000/-) 2 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000.00 4 Loss of Consortium to the 1st & 2nd appellants/1st & 2nd petitioners (Rs.40,000/- each) 80,000.00 Total Rs.5,96,000.00 (-) Compensation awarded By the Tribunal Rs. 1,50,000.00 Enhanced amount Rs. 4,46,000.00 24. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal /Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get more compensation than claimed, but the Tribunal did not pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather, it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather, it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable and the claimants are entitled to more compensation than the amount awarded, though they might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition. 25. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the Judgments supra, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and thereby, enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.5,96,000/-. 26. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.5,96,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit, against the Respondents 2 and 3 (insurer and owner) jointly and severally. (ii) Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. (iii) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed (As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)). (iv) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. (v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. (vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. (vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.