JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri M. Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned standing counsel for APSRTC for the appellants and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V Act”) was filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation) and another challenging the award dated 09.01.2017, in M.V.O.P. No. 53 of 2016, passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole. 3. The 1st respondent is the husband of the deceased. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are the son and daughter respectively of the deceased. The 4th respondent is the mother of the deceased. The 4th respondent-mother also died pending the appeal and was substituted by the legal representatives respondents 6 to 8. 4. The 5th respondent is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus. 5. The claimants filed M.V.O.P. No. 53 of 2016 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Annaluri Sri Lakshmi. 6. The case of the claimants is that the deceased met with the accident dated 06.12.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. at Post Office Centre, Kandukur, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 27Z 0129 of Chirala Bus Depot within the limits of Kandukur Town police station. The deceased was Post Graduate M.A. English and B.Ed and was working as Teacher. The age of the deceased was said to be 35 years. 7. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 8. The 1st appellant filed counter denying the allegations and also the age, avocation and the income of the deceased as also rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Violation of the policy conditions that the deceased was not wearing helmet was also pleaded. The appellants were not liable to pay the compensation. 9. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Violation of the policy conditions that the deceased was not wearing helmet was also pleaded. The appellants were not liable to pay the compensation. 9. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the death of the deceased Annaluri Sree Lakshmi occurred due to the injuries received in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus b bearing No. AP 27 Z 0129 by the Respondent No. 3, if so whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of the moped bearing No. AP 27 AW 4690 as alleged by the respondent No. 1 in his written statement? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Moped bearing No. AP 27 AW 4690? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief?” 10. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and no documents were marked. 11. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. Bus driver. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 12. On the point of compensation amount, the age of the deceased was held as 35 years. She was working as Primary In-charge in Sri Chaitanya School Techno Curriculum, Pamur Road, Kandukur for the last five years prior to her death. The gross salary of the deceased was taken as Rs.20,000/- per month and after deducting the professional tax, the monthly income was determined as Rs.19,800/- considering the Ex.A.8 salary certificate and original pay slip Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12 for the months of October and November, 2015 respectively. The multiplier of 16 at the age of 31 to 35 was applied. The amount determined, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased came to Rs.24,34,400/-. To the said amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- each for claimants 2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection and care and guardianship were added. The total amount, the claimants were held entitled was Rs.25,84,400/-. 7.5% per annum interest was awarded. To the said amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- each for claimants 2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection and care and guardianship were added. The total amount, the claimants were held entitled was Rs.25,84,400/-. 7.5% per annum interest was awarded. The appellants and the 5th respondent were held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. Thus, the claim of the claimants was allowed partly, vide judgment dated 09.01.2017. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the salary of the deceased has been wrongly considered as Rs.20,000/- per month. The same is without any evidence. 14. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the monthly salary, for computation of compensation, has been determined as Rs.19,800/-. The same is based on the documentary evidence Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12, and also the oral evidence of PW-3, the Principal of Sri Chaitanya School Techno Curriculum institution. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that: (i) the Tribunal erred in making deductions at 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. (ii) the future prospectus have not been awarded. (iii) the compensation awarded under conventional head is also not as per the settled law. (iv) the interest should have been 9% per annum, instead of 7.5% p.a. 17. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 18. The point which arises for our consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just and fair compensation or it is on the higher side or lower side, in the light of the submissions advanced?” 19. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned the Tribunal recorded finding of Rs.19,800/- per month. It considered Ex.A.8 salary certificate and Ex.A.11 and A.12 the pay slips for the months of October and November, 2015 and Ex.A.10 which is the attendance register sheet showing that the deceased was working as the Teacher in the said institution. There was oral evidence of PW-3 the Principal of Sri Chaitanya School Techno Curriculum institution as well, who proved that the deceased was in that institution as Primary In-charge, since June, 2011 and remained till her death. Nothing to the contrary was brought to our notice. There was oral evidence of PW-3 the Principal of Sri Chaitanya School Techno Curriculum institution as well, who proved that the deceased was in that institution as Primary In-charge, since June, 2011 and remained till her death. Nothing to the contrary was brought to our notice. The appellants did not produce any witnesses, except RW-1, who could not adduce any contrary evidence on the point of income. Consequently, we find that the finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to support the finding is without any merit. 20. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the following counts: (i) the number of the claimants being four, towards personal expenses of the deceased 1/4th ought to have been deducted and not 1/3rd in view of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in which, it was held 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.” (ii) the claimants are entitled for the future prospects to be added on the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal. The deceased being 35 years, and the Teacher in the Private Educational Institution. 40% as the future prospects ought to have been added, which we allow as future prospectus. (iii) under the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for the amount in terms of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 which comes to Rs.48,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,92,000/- loss of consortium + Rs.18,000/- loss of estate + Rs.18,000/- funeral expenses. 21. 21. The total compensation would come to as shown in the table below: S. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs. 2,37,600/- (Rs. 19,800/- x 12) 2. Future prospects Rs. 95,040/- (i.e. 40% of the Income) 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs. 83,160/- (i.e. 1/4th of Rs. 3,32,640/-) 4. Total income Rs. 2,49,480/- 5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 35 years 16 x Rs. 2,49,480 = Rs. 39,91,680/- 10. Conventional heads: (i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 4) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- (iii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 11. Total compensation awarded Rs. 42,19,680/- 22. The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest per annum. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a. which is upheld. 23. The claimants would be entitled in total Rs.42,19,680/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation/deposit. 24. The appellants shall make the payment by depositing the amount in total as per this judgment before the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited/paid, within one months. 25. The claimants shall be allowed to withdraw the compensation amount with interest in the proportion, in terms of the award of the Tribunal. 26. In the result, the appeal of the Insurance company is dismissed, but granting just and fair compensation to the claimants to which they are legally entitled in terms of Paras 21 to 23 and with direction as in Paras 24 and 25. The cost throughout is awarded in favour of the claimants. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.