JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2015 dated 02.12.2016. 2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of one Pasam Subbarao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, are the appellants. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2799 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 15.10.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., while the deceased proceeding on his TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 27 AR 8481 along with aluminum vessels to sell the same in surrounding villages, when he reached Akkacheruvu Village crossroad, the crime lorry driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn, dashed the said moped and dragged it about 20 meters, resulted the left forehand of the deceased was separated and he sustained severe injuries. While shifting the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ongole for treatment, he succumbed to injuries. ii). The deceased used to earn Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month by selling Aluminum Vessels. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the owner, driver and insurer of the crime lorry. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident and the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the death of the deceased Pasam Subba Rao had occurred due to the injuries received in the accident on 15.10.2015 at 07.45 A.M. caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry (Tipper) bearing No.AP 27 TX 2799, by its driver? 2.Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the TVS XL bearing No.27 AR 8481? 3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2.Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the TVS XL bearing No.27 AR 8481? 3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and against whom? and 5.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy schedule was exhibited with consent. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,78,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants. 10. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer. 11. Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that as per Ex.A.1 the age of the deceased by the time of incident was 35 years, but the tribunal failed to consider the same; that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day even the unskilled labour is getting more than Rs.300/- per day, thereby, the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed before the Tribunal. 12. Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, as such, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the Tribunal granted just compensation as entitled by the claimants?” 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased, involvement of crime lorry in the incident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident as well Ex.B.1 policy issued by the insurer for the crime lorry is in force by the time of incident. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased, involvement of crime lorry in the incident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident as well Ex.B.1 policy issued by the insurer for the crime lorry is in force by the time of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the insurer of the crime lorry did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the compensation. 16. To prove the income of the deceased as claimed, the claimants examined P.W.3, who is close relative of deceased, in support of the testimony of P.W.1. He (P.W.3) testified that the deceased used to sell aluminum vessels in and around Darsi areas and used to earn an amount of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family members. But the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day. It is not in dispute that by the time of incident, the deceased used to sell aluminum vessels in nearby villages and getting income. Thereby, in view of the above circumstance, this Court can fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.300/- per day. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. 17. Coming to the age of the deceased by the time of incident is concerned, the claimants pleaded that by the time of incident the deceased was aged 35 years as per Ex.A.1 Aadhar card. But, on perusal of Exs.A.2, A.5 and A.6 F.I.R., Inquest report and Postmortem report respectively, which are also produced and relied upon by the claimants, it is categorical that the deceased was aged 48 years by the time of incident. Thereby, the Tribunal basing on the above said material, rightly arrived the conclusion regarding age of the deceased by the time of incident as 48 years. 18. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. 18. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “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 Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 19. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), at para 59.4. it is held “ In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the present case, as per the above-mentioned decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects since the deceased is in the age group of 46 to 50 years. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.1,35,000/-(Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-). 21. In the case on hand, the deceased was married, he had wife and two children, thereby the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 from the income of the deceased. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.1,35,000/-(Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-). 21. In the case on hand, the deceased was married, he had wife and two children, thereby the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.90,000/-. 22. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr, 2017 (3) SCC 315, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. 23. In the present case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age ground of the deceased i.e., between 46 to 50 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.11,70,000/- (Rs.90,000/- x 13). 23. In the present case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age ground of the deceased i.e., between 46 to 50 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.11,70,000/- (Rs.90,000/- x 13). Apart from that, as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards spousal and parental consortium, an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,20,000/-. The remaining heads as claimed and awarded by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present case on hand, in view of the above pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.1,08,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-) Rs.1,35,000/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.90,000/-. 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.90,000/- x 13) Rs.11,70,000/- 5 Loss of spousal and parental consortium (wife and two children) Rs.1,20,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.13,20,000/- 25. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the tribunal can be modified to the extent of enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,78,000/- to Rs.13,20,000/- only. It is needless to say, in view of the above discussion, the other findings arrived by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed to enhance the compensation from Rs.5,78,000/- to Rs.13,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. 26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed to enhance the compensation from Rs.5,78,000/- to Rs.13,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are children of the deceased, are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon after attaining majority, until then shall kept their compensation amount in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank on their name by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.