JUDGMENT : (Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.) The present M.A.C.M.A. and Cross Objections are being disposed of by this common judgment, since M.A.C.M.A. filed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objections filed by the petitioners/claimants are directed against the very same order and decree dated 15.04.2024 passed in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- On 09.01.2021, the deceased/Poluri Srinivasa Rao was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-AU-0393 from his house to purchase groceries and when he reached Road No.2, Chaitanya Nagar, Khammam at about 10.00 hours, the driver of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.TS 04 EY 5949 drove the said Car in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without taking any precautionary measures and dashed against the Motor Cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained injuries over the head and other vital organs. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to KHIMS Hospital, Khammam. After receiving the first aid, due to his critical condition, the deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and underwent treatment, but the Doctors advised to take back the deceased as his condition was hopeless. Accordingly, on 13.01.2021, the petitioners shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Khammam, where the doctors examined and declared as dead at about 15.40 hours. The petitioners spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased. Based on the report, the Police Khammam II Town registered a case in Cr.No.16/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle, and later altered it to Sec.304-A IPC. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 52 years. The deceased worked as a Government Teacher at UPS, Khanapuram Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District and used to draw Rs.64,515/- per month as salary. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. The 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, therefore, the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, and the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company, examined RW-1 and marked Ex.B-1 Copy of the Insurance Policy. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.90,71,136/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 is filed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objections No.62 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that since the deceased was a Government Teacher by profession and an Income Tax assessee, the Tribunal ought to have deducted Income Tax and Professional Tax from the earnings of the deceased in view of the settled law laid down by the Apex Court in Shamavathi Sharma and Others Vs. Karan Singh and others ( 2010 ACJ 1968 ) and Vimal Kanwar & Others Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors ( Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012). 9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company further contended that as per the calculations made by the Insurance Company in terms of the settled law, the liability would not be more than Rs. 80,30,168/- under all heads, but the Tribunal erroneously granted an amount of Rs.90,71,136/-, which is excessive. Accordingly, prayed the Court to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal. 10. 80,30,168/- under all heads, but the Tribunal erroneously granted an amount of Rs.90,71,136/-, which is excessive. Accordingly, prayed the Court to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners instead of Rs.90,71,136/-. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount under the head of funeral expenses, and as per law, it ought to have granted an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the rate of interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum as per the judgments of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanuram ( 2018 ACJ 2782 SC.) and Narender Padu Ranga Kadam ( 1995 (1) SCC 320 ). The Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation as per the Apex Court judgments under various heads as claimed by the petitioners, and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced. 12. Heard both sides and perused the record. Findings of this Court :- 13. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed recasted issue on 07.02.2024 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.01.2021 and having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-5 rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and no contra evidence was putforth by the 2nd respondent to show that the accident occurred in any manner other than the claimed by the petitioners and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Insurance Company admitted all the aspects, considered by the Tribunal, except the quantum of compensation. 15. The Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Insurance Company admitted all the aspects, considered by the Tribunal, except the quantum of compensation. 15. The Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, held as follows :- “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…..”. 16. As per the above decision, it is clear that the petitioners have to establish the age, income of the deceased and number of dependents of the deceased at the time of the accident and the deductions and additions to be made. 17. The evidence of P.W-1 and Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 shows that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and rebutting the same, the respondents did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was aged about 52' years as on the date of accident. 18. To prove the income of the deceased, PW.1 examined PW.4, Head Master of ZPHS, Rebbavaram, Wyra Mandal of Khammam District, who deposed that the deceased was working from 11.07.2018 till his death, i.e., 13.01.2021 as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in MPUPS, Khanapuram, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. He issued Ex.A-8-Pay Slips for the months of October, November and December 2020 as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, showing that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.64,515/- per month. He also issued Ex.A-21- TSTC Form 47 Salary Bill pertaining to the deceased. He further stated that from 01.04.2020, PRC was implemented for monetary benefit, and after implementation of PRC, the salary of the deceased for the month of December, 2020 is Rs.81,791/-. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal, based on Ex.A-21, rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.81,791/-, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,81,492/-. However, the Tribunal erred by not deducting the professional tax and the income tax payable by the deceased, and the same ought to have been deducted before computing the compensation. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,81,492/-. However, the Tribunal erred by not deducting the professional tax and the income tax payable by the deceased, and the same ought to have been deducted before computing the compensation. The income-tax slab rates for the Financial Year 2021-22, as applicable to the deceased, are: S.No. Income Slab Tax Rate Applicable 1. Upto Rs.2,50,000/- NIL 2. Rs.2,50,001/- to Rs.5,00,000/- 5 % 3. Rs.5,00,001 to Rs.10,00,000/- 20% 19. Hence, the income tax payable on the said amount, i.e., Rs.9,81,492/-, is Rs.1,08,798/- [Rs.12,500/- + Rs.96,298/-]. The professional tax applicable is Rs.2,400/- [Rs.200/- x 12] and accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.8,70,294/- [Rs.9,81,492/- (minus) Rs.1,08,798/- (minus) Rs.2,400/-]. 20. The Tribunal rightly added 15% towards the future prospects of the deceased since the deceased was a Government Teacher and was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , and accordingly, the annual income of the deceased arrives at Rs.10,00,838/- [Rs.8,70,294/-+ Rs.1,30,544/-]. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased since the claimants are two in number, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the income arrives at Rs.6,67,225/- [Rs.10,00,838/- (minus) Rs.3,33,613/-]. Further, the Tribunal rightly took the multiplier as ‘11’ in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.73,39,475/- (Rs.6,667,225/- X 11). 21. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A-13, A-14, A-15, Ex.A-17, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,592/- towards medical bills, Rs.40,000/- towards ambulance bills and Rs.5,21,797/- towards inpatient bills, which need no interference by this Court. 22. In the instant case, the Tribunal has erroneously granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioners towards consortium and loss of love and affection. However, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioner No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards the loss of spousal consortium. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the 2nd petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- (Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards the loss of spousal consortium. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the 2nd petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards loss of parental consortium. 23. Insofar as the funeral expenses are concerned, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are not entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, as the deceased was a Government employee and he might have already withdrawn the said amount. But, in PRANAY SETHI (supra), the Supreme Court has not distinguished the granting of funeral expenses in respect of Government employees and ordinary persons. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses. 24. Insofar as loss of estate is concerned, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, which needs to be enhanced since three more years have lapsed from the date of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.80,49,964/-. 25. Therefore, the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.355 of 2021 is modified as follows:- S.No. Particulars Amount 1. Annual salary of the deceased (Rs.81,791/-X 12) Rs.9,81,492/- 2. Less: Professional Tax (Rs.200/- x 12) (-)Rs.2,400/- 3. Less: Income Tax (-)Rs.1,08,798/- 4. Net Income [1-(2+3)] Rs.8,70,294/- 5. Add: 15 % Future Prospects Rs.1,30,544/- 6. Sub-Total Rs.10,00,838/- 7. Less: 1/3rd towards Personal Expenditure (-)Rs.3,33,613/- 8. Sub-Total Rs.6,67,225/- 9. Total Loss of Dependency (Rs.6,67,225/- x 11) Rs.73,39,475/- 10. Add : Conventional Heads (Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate) (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +10% + 10%) Rs.36,300/- 11. Add: Loss of spousal consortium (Rs.40,000/-+ 10%) to petitioner No.1 Rs.48,400/- 12. Add: Loss of parental consortium to petitioner No.2 Rs.48,400/- 13. Add : Medical bills Rs.15,592/- 14. Add : Ambulance bills Rs.40,000/- 15. Add : Medical bills Rs.5,21,797/- Total Compensation Rs.80,49,964/- 26. The Tribunal erroneously granted interest at 6% per annum and the same has to be modified. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 27. Add : Medical bills Rs.15,592/- 14. Add : Ambulance bills Rs.40,000/- 15. Add : Medical bills Rs.5,21,797/- Total Compensation Rs.80,49,964/- 26. The Tribunal erroneously granted interest at 6% per annum and the same has to be modified. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. and Cross Objections are disposed of by modifying the order and decree dated 15.04.2024 passed in MVOP No.355 of 2021. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.90,71,136/- to Rs.80,49,964/- (Rupees Eighty lakh forty nine thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount in the same manner and ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.