JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. Introductory:- The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa [for short “learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 04.05.2011, wherein the compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- was awarded as against a claim made for Rs.4,00,000/-, filed the present appeal. 2. The 1 st respondent [insured] is the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA 01 D 2766 [for short ‘the offending vehicle] remained ex parte. The 2 nd respondent is the Insurance Company/[insurer] with which the vehicle was insured . 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred as the claimants and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Sequence of events:- Case of the claimants:- 4. [i] One Beduduri Pavan [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] a Shepherd, aged about ‘19’ years, while grazing the sheep, on 24.01.2009 at Kondapuram to Mudanuru road, near ITI College, the offending vehicle driven by its driver, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased and ran over him, whereby the deceased suffered instantaneous death in that said accident. Due to the ghastly accident, several sheep also suffered death and injuries. [ii] A case in Cr.No.5 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 429 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. [iii] Claimants are the parents of the deceased. [iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. [v] The deceased was hale and healthy, earning Rs.6000/- per month. It is claimed that due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost hopes of their future apart from loss of love and affection etc.. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 5. Adverting to the objections of Insurance Company and oral and documentary evidence, i.e., the evidence of PW.1-father of the deceased/1 st claimant, PW.2-eye witness to the accident, Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem report, Ex.A4-Charge Sheet, Ex.A5-M.V.I. report, leaned MACT adopting multiplier applicable to the age of mother of the deceased, taking loss of dependency at Rs.1000/- per month, awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.1000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and in all awarded Rs.1,43,000/-. 6. 6. Since this is claimants’ appeal and as there is neither cross- objections nor cross-appeal by the respondent-Insurance Company, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, violations of conditions of Insurance Policy, liability of the respondent-Insurance Company, entitlement of claimants for compensation are all out of dispute. The only point remains for determination is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled? Arguments in Appeal: For the appellants/claimants:- 7. [i] Taking loss of dependency at Rs.1,000/- per month is incorrect. [ii] Adoption of multiplier applicable to the father of the deceased is incorrect. [iii] Compensation awarded under various heads is not in tune with the settled law. [iv] Awarding more compensation than what claimed is also permitted, if claimants are entitled. For the respondents:- 8. Compensation awarded is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 10. Now, the points that remains for determination is that - 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimants and whether the compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned Order and decree dated 04.05.2011 is just and reasonable Or require any interference? If so, to what extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential Guidance: a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 11. [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. [ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he/she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. This shall be with reference to the table provided in the judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 12. [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others , [ 2017(16) SCC 680 ] case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. [ii] The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 13. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. d) Just Compensation: 14. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ], it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. e) In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors. , (2021) 17 SCC 148 , the Hon’ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self-employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income. Awarding more compensation than what claimed:- 15. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. ,  2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ] at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Analysis of evidence:- 16. [i] PW.1, father of the deceased deposed about the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and the deceased was the bread winner for the family and they have spent an amount of Rs.5000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was ‘19’ years and unmarried. [i] PW.1, father of the deceased deposed about the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and the deceased was the bread winner for the family and they have spent an amount of Rs.5000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was ‘19’ years and unmarried. During the cross-examination, the age of the 1 st claimant is stated as ‘60’ and 2 nd claimant as ‘55’ years, which was taken as the basis, by the learned MACT. As per the settled law, the multiplier for the age of the deceased shall be adopted but not the parents. [ii] PW.2, eye witness to the accident, who was also grazing sheep, stated about the accident and the occupation of the deceased as Shepherd. 17. The year of the accident is 2009. Upon application of the minimum wages theory applicable to the labour, income of a person can be taken at Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day, as per Notional Floor Level Minimum Wage [NFLMW] adoption, in terms of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Therefore, the income of the deceased can be safely accepted at Rs.3000/- per month. Since the deceased aged ‘19’ years, and engaged in a private occupation, 40% of the addition to his income can be added towards future prospects, with which the income can be adopted at Rs.4,200/- per month and Rs.50,400/- p.a.. Since the deceased died unmarried, 50% of his income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure, whereby the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken at Rs.25,200/-, which can be considered as multiplicand. 18. For the age group of the deceased, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. If the same is applied, entitlement of the claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency, comes to [25,200x 18] Rs.4,53,600/-. The claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium and Rs.5000/- towards transportation as claimed by them. 19. In view of the above discussion and in the light of precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimants for just and reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.4,53,600/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenditure -Nil- Rs.15,000/- 4. Transportation Charges Rs.1000/- Rs.5000/- 5. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.4,53,600/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenditure -Nil- Rs.15,000/- 4. Transportation Charges Rs.1000/- Rs.5000/- 5. Loss of consortium -Nil- Rs.80,000/- (@ Rs.40,000/- each x 2) Total: Rs.1,43,000/- Rs.5,68,600/- 20. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation at Rs.5,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Point No.2: 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows:- (1) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.1,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,68,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (2) Apportionment: (i) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.3,68,600/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (ii) Claimant No.2 is entitled at Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. (3) The claimants/petitioners shall pay the Court fee in respect of enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. (4) The claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. (5) Time to deposit the balance compensation amount within a period of two (02) months. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.