JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. No representation for the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal), Guntur, on 02.05.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 1203 of 2010. 3. The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, Rajendra Prasad filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘the Act’) claiming total compensation of Rs.34,50,000/- for the death of Rajendra Prasad in a road accident on 11.05.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. caused by the offending vehicle Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 7 AK 1529, belonging to the 1st respondent, which was being driven rashly and negligently, resulting to the death of Rajendra Prasad on 31.05.2010, while undergoing treatment for the injuries. 4. The case of the claimants inter alia was that the deceased was aged about 52 years and was working as Charge man (Electrical) in Guntur District Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited (Sangam Dairy) and earning Rs.26,689/- p.m. as salary. 5. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 6. So far as the 1st respondent is concerned, as per the office report, notice sent was returned. The award of the Tribunal is ex-parte against the 1st respondent. Consequently, we consider it is now not necessary to issue fresh notice. 7. The 2nd respondent-National Insurance Company Limited filed objections against the petition denying the material allegations and contending that the motor cycle was not insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of accident and there was no valid insurance policy. The 1st respondent was also not having effective driving licence and consequently, the 2nd respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 07 AK 1529 and that resulted in death of Jaladi Rajendra Prasad? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 3. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled? 9. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and A1 to A12 were exhibited. On behalf of insurance company, RW-1 was examined and B1- insurance policy was exhibited 10. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 3. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled? 9. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and A1 to A12 were exhibited. On behalf of insurance company, RW-1 was examined and B1- insurance policy was exhibited 10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle of the offending motor cycle. It also recorded that the deceased also contributed in such accident and there was equal contributory negligence to an extent of 50%. It determined the age of the deceased as 55 years 9 months (56 years) and the income of the deceased as Rs.32,630/- p.m. and the annual income at Rs.3,91,560/- and after deducting the income tax, it determined the income as Rs.38,916/- p.m. and annual income at Rs.3,50,244/-. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal and living expenses. It applied multiplier ‘4’. Against the claim of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of consortium, it awarded Rs.10,000/- exclusively towards the first claimant widow. Towards medical expenses also, the actual medical expenses were awarded. Towards funeral and transportation expenses Rs.5,000/- was awarded. Thus, the Tribunal held the claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,68,721/- under all heads. But in view of the finding of the contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, it awarded Rs.5,84,360/- as compensation with interest thereon at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, whichever was earlier. It also made apportionment among the claimants. 11. As stated above, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have not challenged the award. 12. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence and the age of the deceased as also on the monthly income of the deceased. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier ‘4’ instead of the multiplier ‘9’, which would be applicable at the age of 56 years, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier ‘4’ instead of the multiplier ‘9’, which would be applicable at the age of 56 years, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded the future prospects, which could be at the rate of 10%. He further submits that the expenses under the conventional heads have either not been awarded or awarded not as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 14. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 15. As per Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier ‘9’ would be applicable at the age of 56 of the deceased. 16. About future prospects the claimants would be entitled @ 15% as well in view of Para 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (Supra): “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.” 17. Additionally, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants being Rs.96,000/- for loss of consortium instead of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- in place of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- in view of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 . After considering Pranay Sethi (Supra), observed that the aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%. Accordingly, the three Conventional Heads are increased by 20%. 18. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 . After considering Pranay Sethi (Supra), observed that the aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%. Accordingly, the three Conventional Heads are increased by 20%. 18. The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 188 the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 the Apex Court awarded interest @ 9% p.a. 19. Accordingly, we hold that the claimants are entitled for the following amount of compensation, in total, along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation: S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs. 3,50,244/- 2. Future Prospects [i.e. 15% of the net annual income] Rs. 52,536/- Total Rs. 4,02,780/- 3. 1/3rd Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs. 1,34,260/- 4. Total income Rs. 2,68,520/- 5. Multiplier of 9 at the age of 56 years i.e. [9 x 2,68,520/-] = Rs. 24,16,680/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,000/- [Rs. 48,000/- x 2] (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- 7. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,19,737/- Rs. 27,68,417/- 8. 50% towards Contributory Negligence [Rs. 27,68,417/- /2] = Rs. 13,84,208/- Total Compensation Rs. 13,84,208/- 20. The appellants 1 and 2 would be entitled for payment of the amount as determined by this Court in the proportion as apportioned by the Tribunal. 21. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The respondent-insurance company shall make the payment to the appellants or deposit before the Tribunal, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. The appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. 22. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.