JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.4569 of 2008 is filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No.7271 of 2011 is filed by the claimants. Both the appeals are filed questioning the judgment passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.447 of 2006, dated 31.03.2008. 2. Since both the appeals are filed against the very same judgment, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The manner in which the accident had taken place and other findings of the Tribunal are not disputed by either of the parties. However, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the income was treated at Rs.15,000/- per annum which is 1/3rd of the daily wage labour. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 and keeping in view the peculiar facts and since the claim of the appellants is that the deceased was earning of Rs.3,000/- per month, the same is considered. 4. Insofar as the deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the deceased was married and survived by wife and two sons, then total dependents are three. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third. 5. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was employed or on a fixed salary, an additional 40% of income should be awarded towards future prospects, where the deceased age was below 40 years. Since the age of deceased at the time of the accident was 32 years, 40% of monthly income of the deceased can be taken towards future prospects. 6. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is ‘16’ for the age groups of 31 to 35. The age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 32 years. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 2023(1) ALD 107(SC), decided on 6. The age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 32 years. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 2023(1) ALD 107(SC), decided on 6. 12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of Sarala Verma (supra) and also the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium. The said enhancement and revision at 10% every 3 years has been done taking into consideration, raise in the cost of expenses and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. 8. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is calculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.36,000/- per annum 2 Future prospects Rs.14,400/- (40% of income) 3 Total income Rs.50,400/- 2 Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.16,800/- (i.e., 1/3rd of total income ) 3 Net Income Rs.33,600/- (i.e.,Rs 50,400/-(-) Rs.16,800/-) 4 Multiplier 16 5 Loss of dependency Rs.5,37,600/- (i.e., Rs.33,600/- x 16) 6 Consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 3) Rs.1,32,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation to be paid: Rs.6,99,600/- 9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A (SR).No.7271 of 2011 filed by the claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,99,600/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The finding of the Tribunal to pay and recovery is not disturbed. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The interest shall not be calculated during the period of delay. The claimants are entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A.No.4569 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.