JUDGMENT : G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J. 1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2013 by order and decree dated 19.11.2020, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased viz. “Abdul Sajjad”. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 21.08.2012, the deceased along with his brother-in-law, namely, Shaik Ali and his friends, namely, Shaik Afzal and Qayyam went to Dharmabad village by train to greet their relatives on the eve of Ramzan festival. On the same day i.e., 21.08.2012, they were returning in auto trolley bearing No. A.P.25.V.2126 to Nizamabad; while so, when the said auto trolley reached the outskirts of Yemcha village, at about 17:00 hours, the driver of the said auto trolley drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle; as a result, the said auto trolley turned turtle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries while undergoing treatment in Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, on the same day. 4. Based on a complaint, Police-Navipet P.S., Nizamabad District, registered First Information Report No.140/2012 under Sections 304-A and 337 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against driver of the crime vehicle i.e., auto trolley bearing No.AP.25.V.2126 and after investigation, filed charge sheet. 5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and was working as mason and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were solely dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection and were left in misery. It was stated that the petitioners were solely dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) against both respondents jointly and severally. 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, negligence and involvement of crime vehicle in the accident and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the driver of the said auto trolley was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and that the terms and condition of insurance policy were violated. Therefore, on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed its liability to pay any compensation amount. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case. 7. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues. i) Whether on 21.08.2012 at about 17:00 hours in the shivar of Yemcha village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Auto trolley bearing No.AP.25.V.2126 by its driver? ii) Whether the Abdul Sajjad received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries? iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2 and relied upon documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioners by awarding Rs.6,65,000/- (Rupees six lakhs sixty five thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, holding respondent No.1 liable for the same and respondent No.2 was exonerated from the liability. However, applying the ‘Pay and Recover’ principle the respondent No.2 Insurance Company was ordered to deposit the compensation awarded initially and recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the auto trolley. Aggrieved by the reduced quantum of compensation, the petitioners have preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners is that though the petitioners proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A7, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased realistically and on a higher side and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. On the above grounds prayed to allow the Appeal and grant just and reasonable compensation. 12. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore interference of this Court is unwarranted. 13. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for any enhancement of compensation?” 14. Heard both sides and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal. 15. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 2 have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the occurrence and the manner of the accident. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW-1 (mother of the deceased) coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A3 (Inquest Report) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. 16. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a mason, the Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,200/- per month and awarded very meager amount towards compensation. 17. 16. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a mason, the Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,200/- per month and awarded very meager amount towards compensation. 17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not placed on record any evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Rs15,000/- per month as mason. Though in Ex.A-5 Salary Certificate, issued by the Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nizamabad, it is mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per day as a daily wage mason, however, no other evidence, either oral or documentary (other than Ex.A5 salary certificate), was placed by the petitioners to establish that the deceased was working as a mason and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any definite proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/-. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased after considering the entire evidence adduced by the petitioners and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. In order to support his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , 2011 (13) SCC 236 , wherein the Court held that in the absence of any specific evidence to prove the income of a deceased or injured, notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month could be taken as the basis for calculating compensation for daily wage laborers in motor accident claim cases. 18. Although, the petitioners submitted Ex.A5 Salary Certificate, issued by the Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nizamabad to substantiate the income of the deceased; the said certificate cannot be considered as a valid Salary certificate, as the Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nizamabad not being the employer of the deceased, is not a competent authority to grant such Salary Certificate. Further, neither the author of the salary certificate A-5 nor any authorized person from the Co- operative society was examined by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of any supporting material, is unacceptable. 19. Further, neither the author of the salary certificate A-5 nor any authorized person from the Co- operative society was examined by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of any supporting material, is unacceptable. 19. For the purpose of computation of income of a deceased or injured, where no evidence is available, applicable minimum wages for that class of person(s) may be considered. Reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , (2022) 1 SCC 198 in support of the said proposition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that “when a salary certificate is not available, the notification of minimum wages and a degree of approximation that is not entirely arbitrary shall be used to ascertain the deceased’s income”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the said principle in the case of Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Company Limited , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1441 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in motor accident claim cases, the ‘minimum wages notification’ may be utilized to ascertain the notional income of the deceased.” Therefore, considering the above decisions and in the factual matrix in the present case, minimum wages notification notified by Andhra Pradesh Labour Department in the year 2012, can be considered. The Government notified the minimum wages for the workers engaged in the building operations or construction or maintenance of roads and building operations under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 vide G.O.Rt.No.169, LET & F (Lab-II) Department, dated 05.02.2013. The minimum wages notified in the said G.O. for unskilled workers like Mazdoor can be taken into consideration. As per the above said notification, the basic wage for unskilled labourer is Rs.5,668/- per month at the relevant time, when the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court is inclined to adopt the monthly wage of the deceased, in the class of an unskilled workmen @ Rs.5,668/- per month which in the opinion of this Court is just and reasonable. 20. Now coming to quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A3 (Inquest Report). 20. Now coming to quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A3 (Inquest Report). As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Tribunal has rightly taken the appropriate multiplier as “18”, considering the age of the deceased. 21. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation, taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 19 years old at the time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the deceased being self employed and held that he is entitled for future prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 , which seems to be just and reasonable. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.7,935/- per month (Rs.5,668/- + Rs.2,267/-). Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.3,968/- (Rs.7,935/- minus Rs.3,968/-); annual income of the deceased based on the above computation comes to Rs.47,616/- (Rs.3,968/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is 18'. When the annual income of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.8,57,088/- (Rs.47,616/- x 18). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of the deceased is Rs.8,57,088/-. 22. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi’ s case (supra 5), the petitioners are entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Though the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and another , (2024) 10 SCR 920 observed that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award compensation more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,34,088/- (Rs.8,57,088/- + Rs.77,000/-) against the claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 23. It is to be seen that out of the initial compensation of Rs.6,65,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,65,000/- to petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased and Rs.1,50,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded sum, the petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,65,000/-. The balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years and the sum awarded to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, should be kept as fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority. It is pertinent to note that by this day the time frame of three years fixed by the Tribunal with regard to the deposit part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank has expired. And the claimant Nos.2 and 3 have already attained majority. 24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations. 25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,65,000/- to Rs.9,34,088/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take steps to recover the same from respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle in accordance with law. On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 i.e., mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.5,34,088/- and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each. The petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any security, subject to the payment of deficit court-fee on the enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount claimed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.