JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 111 of 2014 dated 30.07.2015, for enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimants, who are appellants, are father and younger brother of one Komali Sudheer Kumar (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor bearing No. AP 37 AR 2866. 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 31.07.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. on the instructions of the 1st petitioner to transport the sand to his house at Nallajarla in a tractor bearing No. AP 37 AR 2866 attached with trailer bearing No. AP 37 Y 3723, 1st respondent driver left from Pothavaram village, and when the vehicle reached near High School in Subhadrapalem Road, Pothavaram, they found some technical problem in the engine of the vehicle. With a view to rectify the same, the driver parked the vehicle and separated the trailer from the tractor and after attending the repairs, on the instructions of driver, while the deceased was attempted to connect the tractor and trailer, 1st respondent without observing the deceased in between the tractor and trailer drove the same in reverse direction with high speed and hook of the hydraulic of the tractor hit the deceased and he sustained severe injuries, resulted, he succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. (ii) The deceased was aged about 24 years by the time of incident, doing Foundry Business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased, who is unmarried. Being dependents, they claim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor. 5. The driver and owner remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased, who is unmarried. Being dependents, they claim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor. 5. The driver and owner remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that: The accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver and it is only due to negligence of the deceased; that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the tractor, which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate and thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 1. Whether the accident had occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing Registration No. AP 37 AR 2866? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? 3. To what relief? 7. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined, but Ex.B.1 policy was marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor by its driver as well there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,73,500/- 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 claimants for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard Sri Gandham Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurer. 11. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard Sri Gandham Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurer. 11. Sri Gandham Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, leaned counsel for the claimants submits that the tribunal failed to award compensation on different heads of claim; that the tribunal failed in appreciating the avocation of the deceased and erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs.150/- per day and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 12. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurer submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly calculated and awarded compensation to the claimants and thereby, there are no grounds urged to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the incident? 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 3. To what relief? 14. POINT No. 1: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident as well the insurer did not prefer any appeal against the findings recorded by the tribunal. 15. As per the testimony of PW-2, who was said to be eyewitness to the incident, when the deceased was trying to attach the trailer by standing in between the tractor and trailer, the driver reversed the tractor, resulting in the incident. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 as well no contra material was produced before the tribunal. Even on perusal of Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4, the incident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent driver and held responsible for the same. 16. In fact, the insurer pleaded in its counter before the Tribunal about the contributory negligence of the deceased and the same was considered by the Tribunal, but no oral and documentary evidence was adduced to support the said contention. Even the 1st respondent, who is best witness to speak what really happened and on whose fault the accident had occurred, did not enter into witness box before the tribunal to say that he is not responsible for the incident. 17. Even the 1st respondent, who is best witness to speak what really happened and on whose fault the accident had occurred, did not enter into witness box before the tribunal to say that he is not responsible for the incident. 17. Viewing from any angle, it is crystal clear that 1st respondent driver of the tractor is responsible for the incident and due to his negligence only the incident had occurred. Thereby, no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 18. POINT NO. 2: By taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, even the appellants claimed income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, in view of the absence of material to fortify the same, the tribunal fixed it @ Rs.150/- per day, which comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. This Court did not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the tribunal, while deciding the income of the deceased. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.54,000/- per annum. 19. As per the decision of the constitution bench of the Apex Court judgment reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 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, 31 and 32, 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 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. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 20. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), 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....... (Emphasis supplied) 21. In the present case, as per the above-said decision 40% of actual salary shall have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is in the age group below the age of 40 years. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.75,600/- (Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/-). 22. In the case on hand, since the deceased is bachelor, as per the ratio laid down by the APEX Court 50% is to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.37,800/-. 23. 22. In the case on hand, since the deceased is bachelor, as per the ratio laid down by the APEX Court 50% is to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.37,800/-. 23. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another, 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 capitalising 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........” 24. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e. 24 years is 18. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.37,800/- x 18). Apart from that as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claim petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.7,10,400/-. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.37,800/- x 18). Apart from that as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claim petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.7,10,400/-. 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. 25. 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 after deduction of Income Tax Rs. 54,000/- per annum 2 40% of above (1) to be added as future prospects [Rs. 54,000/- + Rs. 21,600/-] Rs. 75,600/- 3 50% to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs. 37,800/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 18 [Rs. 37,800/- x 18] Rs. 6,80,400/- 5 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 6 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4+5+6) Rs. 7,10,400/- 26. Further it is settled law that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just Compensation” even if it is in excess of the amount claimed. This settled position is followed from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 27. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,73,500/- to Rs.7,10,400/-. Thus, this point is answered in favour of appellants/claimants. 28. POINT No. 3: In view of the findings on point Nos. 27. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,73,500/- to Rs.7,10,400/-. Thus, this point is answered in favour of appellants/claimants. 28. POINT No. 3: In view of the findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only and with regard to the remaining aspects there is no need to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be considered. 29. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,73,500/- to Rs.7,10,400/- with interest at 7% per annum, with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as well 2nd petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,400/- and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The appellants/claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. 30. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 31. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.