JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 183 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation, with regard to the death of the Udayagiri Venkata Rattaiah (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 24.02.2011 at 04.30 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.8,23,500/-. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) Deceased Udayagiri Venkata Rattaiah was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was aged 26 years prior to his death. He was working as mason and used to earn Rs.500/- per day and contributing his entire earnings towards maintenance of his family. (ii) On 24.02.2011 at about 04.30 p.m., the deceased was returning to Mandanaidupalli Village, on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 Q 3302, after dropping his mother at Duttalururu bus stand. When the deceased reached Duttaluru tank bund road, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5960 (“offending vehicle” for short), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed proceeding from Vijayawada to Proddaturu, dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. (iii) Due to sudden premature death of the deceased the claimants have lost their earning member of the family. Claimant No. 1 was seven (07) months pregnant and subsequently on 21.06.2011, she gave birth to a female child, who is none other than the claimant No. 5 and she is entitled to the compensation along with other claimants. (iv) The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus, during his employment under the respondent corporation. Hence, the respondent corporation is liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent corporation got filed a counter, contending that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred was due to the fault of the deceased. Hence, the respondent corporation is liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent corporation got filed a counter, contending that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred was due to the fault of the deceased. The compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial: (1) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 5960 and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.8,23,500/-. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation as follows: (1) petitioner No. 1 is entitled to receive Rs.4,93,500/- (2) petitioner No. 2 is entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- (3) petitioner No. 3 is entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- (4) petitioner No. 4 is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- and (5) petitioner No. 5 is entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner No. 1 to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two (02) years. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were permitted to withdraw their share of amount by filing an application. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 share shall be kept in any nationalized bank, till they attain majority, after attaining majority, they were permitted to withdraw their share. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid compensation so awarded as excessive and felt that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. the unsuccessful respondent, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid compensation so awarded as excessive and felt that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. the unsuccessful respondent, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point for determination is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 183 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?” POINT: 10. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned standing counsel for the appellant, would contend that there was no proper evidence to prove rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and further the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.8,23,500/- as against the original claim of Rs.6,00,000/- as such, the award is liable to be interfered with. Further the income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.4,500/- per month, without there being any proof whatsoever. 11. Sri P. Lalitha Aditya, learned counsel, representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just compensation as such, the award of the Tribunal needs no interference. He relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and submits that the minor children are eligible for parental consortium. 12. PW-1 before the Tribunal was no other than the claimant No. 1. In her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the averments in tune with her pleadings. Through her evidence, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 13 of 2011 of Duttaluru police station. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of post mortem report. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of M.V.I. report. Ex.A5 was the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6 was the scanning report. Ex.A7 was the birth certificate of claimant No. 5. Ex.A8 was the I.T.I. marks list. 13. Apart from this, she examined PW-2, a direct witness to the occurrence, who deposed that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus in driving the bus. Ex.A6 was the scanning report. Ex.A7 was the birth certificate of claimant No. 5. Ex.A8 was the I.T.I. marks list. 13. Apart from this, she examined PW-2, a direct witness to the occurrence, who deposed that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus in driving the bus. There is no dispute that name of him was shown as LW-6 in the charge sheet filed by the police. PWs. 1 and 2 denied that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. The thing is that respondent did not examine any witnesses. The police filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 13 o 2011 of Duttaluru police station, alleging that the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in the death of the deceased. 14. Now coming of the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as that of Rs.3,000/- per month, basing on notional theory and further considered the future prospects as that of 50% by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 ACJ 1403 and added a sum of Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,000/- there by arrived at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the monthly income towards his personal and living expenses, arrived at net contributions as Rs.3,375/- per month and Rs.40,500/- per annum, by applying multiplier of 17 and arrived at multiplicand as Rs.6,88,500/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1 and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, thereby awarded total compensation of Rs.8,23,500/- and directed the petitioner to pay deficit Court fee on the additional amount of Rs.2,23,500/-. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1 and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, thereby awarded total compensation of Rs.8,23,500/- and directed the petitioner to pay deficit Court fee on the additional amount of Rs.2,23,500/-. 15. Now, coming to award future prospects to the deceased, It is well settled that according to the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 the question of future prospects would arise in case of a person who was on permanent job or in favour of a person who was self employed or in favour of a person who was on a fixed salary. But in the present case on hand, the income of the deceased was fixed on guess work, Hence, the act of the Tribunal in considering to award future prospects is not tenable. However, the fact remained is that the very fixing of the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be on lesser side. The accident in question was occurred in the year 2011. The minimum wages for a labourer in the year 2011, would be between Rs.150/- to Rs.175/- per day. Considering the same, it would be appropriate to consider the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of notional theory as that of Rs.4,500/-. After deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses and applying multiplier of 17 fixed, the multiplicand as Rs.6,88,500/-. It is to be noted that that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (3rd supra), the compensation under the conventional heads to be awarded only Rs.70,000/- loss of estate and loss of consortium and funeral expense should be Rs.15,000/- Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Apart from this, by considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others case (supra), the children are entitled to parental consortium, the petitioner No. 2 who is the son of the deceased as on the date of the accident is minor. So, petitioner No. 2 is entitled to loss of parental consortium to a tune of Rs.40,000/-. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others case (supra), the children are entitled to parental consortium, the petitioner No. 2 who is the son of the deceased as on the date of the accident is minor. So, petitioner No. 2 is entitled to loss of parental consortium to a tune of Rs.40,000/-. The claimant No. 5, who was in the womb of her mother as on the date of the death of the deceased is also entitled parental consortium to a tune of Rs.40,000/-. 16. Considering the same, the compensation which can be awarded to the claimants can be summarized as follows: S. No. Name of the head under which compensation is granted Amount awarded 1. Multiplicand Rs. 6,88,500/- 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No. 1 + funeral expenses + loss of estate Rs. 70,000/- 3. Loss of consortium to petitioner No. 2 Rs. 40,000/- 4. Loss of consortium to petitioner No. 5 Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 8,38,500/- Under the circumstances, as the compensation that is calculated as above is more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as there is no cross objection or cross appeal, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal need not be disturbed. 17. In the light of the above, the award, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 183 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, needs no interference. 18. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their share of compensation in terms of the award of the Tribunal. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.