JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. We have heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Yara Shiva Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present MACMA is filed by Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1615 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for Short ‘the Tribunal’) insofar as allowing the claim of the claimants granting compensation of Rs.27,86,500/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to till the date of deposit with proportionate costs, as arbitrary. 3. The facts leading to the filing of MVOP before the learned Tribunal are that on 04.02.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. while the deceased Mangali Abhilash s/o.Agamaiah was traveling as pillion rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-11AE-6780 driven by one Ahmed Abdul Lateef from Hyderabad to Dundigal side and when they reached near Maisammaguda X Road of Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the driver of DCM Eicher vehicle bearing No.MH-31CQ-4641 coming from Bachupalli village towards Hyderabad at high speed in a rash and negligent manner while trying to overtake an unknown vehicle at a deep curve, hit the motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulting which, the rider of the motor cycle Ahmed Abdul Lateef fell down and died on the spot while the pillion rider deceased Abhilash sustained head injury and multiple fractures. 4. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Abhilash was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Kompalli and thereafter to NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta on 07-02-2010, where he underwent treatment upto 10.06.2010 and later was shifted to BGS Hospital, Bangalore on 11.06.2010 for better treatment. The deceased was again shifted to Global Hospital, Hyderabad on 30.11.2010 and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 01-12-2010 and underwent treatment upto 03.12.2010. Due to the deteriorating condition of the deceased, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad on 03.12.2010, where he succumbed to injuries on the same day. 5. Respondents/claimants contended that the deceased was pursuing B.Tech Engineering course and was a meritorious student with brilliant academic record bringing laurels to the College by participating in National Talent Events and winning medals. The deceased was recognized for inventing a remote-controlled helicopter within 8 K.Ms. range, which received public and media attention. 5. Respondents/claimants contended that the deceased was pursuing B.Tech Engineering course and was a meritorious student with brilliant academic record bringing laurels to the College by participating in National Talent Events and winning medals. The deceased was recognized for inventing a remote-controlled helicopter within 8 K.Ms. range, which received public and media attention. The deceased also invented 17 formulas, and recognizing his brilliance, one A.Raghavender of Hyderabad established “HAWK’s Aero Modeling” (model of Aero Plans) at Sultan Sahi, Hyderabad. A partnership firm was established between the deceased Abhilash and A.Raghavender under registered deed dated 15-01-2010. The deceased also used to tutor the students of 1 st to 3 rd year Aeronautical Engineering students and earn Rs.50,000/- p.m. The deceased noted to have a brilliant future due to his inventions and would have earned significant monthly income had he been alive. 6. The respondents/claimants further contended that they seek compensation for the untimely death of the deceased, claiming loss of present and future earnings and they became bankrupt due to the death of the deceased, and they asserted that the deceased had a high earning potential of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. due to his inventions and accolades. Therefore, approached the learned Tribunal by way of MVOP No.1165 of 2011 under Section 16 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 475/1B of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 r/w Section 140(c) of the Act claiming Rs.60,00,000/- towards compensation from the appellant. 7. Before the learned Tribunal, the 5 th respondent herein, and 1 st respondent in the O.P. i.e. owner of Eicher Vehicle remained ex parte. 8. The appellant herein, who is 2 nd respondent in the OP filed counter denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition stating that no notice was served on the appellant Company either by the owner of the vehicle or by the claimants informing about the accident. It was further contended that they have no knowledge about the criminal case in Cr.No.34 of 2010, as they have not received any notice. The appellant Company further stated in the counter-affidavit that as per Section 134(c) of the Act, it is the mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of the dead person and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. The appellant Company further stated in the counter-affidavit that as per Section 134(c) of the Act, it is the mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of the dead person and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. The appellant denied that the rider of the motor cycle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor cycle as on the date of accident. The appellant contended that the rider of the motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following/observing traffic Rules and contributed for the cause of accident and as such, the appellant Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant Company further contended before the learned Tribunal that in the event of granting any compensation to the claimants, the same has to be restricted under the Act, and the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% p.a as on the date of passing of the award. 9. Basing on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “ 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 04.02.2010 was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. DCM Eicher No.MH-31CQ-4641 and whether the deceased Mangali Abhilash died due to the said accident? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so to what quantum and whether the crime vehicle was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent and what is the liability of the respondent? 3) To what relief?” 10. Before the learned Tribunal, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. However, Ex.B-1, which is copy of Insurance policy was marked. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-29 and Ex.X-1 were marked. 11. During the course of examination, P.W.2 Y.Laxmi Radhika, who is an eye-witness to the incident, testified that the driver of DCM Eicher was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Bachupally village towards Hyderabad and collided with the motor cycle from the opposite direction, and that panchayatdars conducting inquest confirmed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Eicher vehicle. 12. 12. P.W.3 B.Seshagiri Rao, Superintendent in-charge billing Section in NIMS Hospital deposed that the deceased was admitted in their Hospital on 07.02.2010 on account of accident and discharged on 10.06.2010. P.W.4 P.Rajesh, Assistant Billing Manager, BGS Global Hospital, Bangalore also stated that the deceased was admitted in their hospital on 11.06.2010 and discharged on 01.07.2010 after treatment. Ex.A-1 shows that one Ishan Ali Khan, who is the friend of the rider of the motor cycle, in which deceased was proceeding as pillion rider, gave complaint to the police with regard to the accident, basing on which, the police registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2010 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. 13. Ex.A-4 copy of Post Mortem Examination dated 04-12-2010 discloses that the doctor conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.A-5 discloses that the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle. In support of the contentions made on behalf of claimants, Exs.A-3 and A-4 were marked as proof disclosing the age of deceased as 21 years. 14. Basing on the evidence of P.W.1, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and supported by Exs.A-1 to A-5, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Eicher vehicle bearing No.MH-31CQ-4641. The learned Tribunal also recorded that there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the appellant. 15. Learned Tribunal further held that the age of the deceased is established as 21 years, and that P.W.1 stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.50,000/- p.m. by tutoring to Aeronautical students. 16. Regarding the earning capacity of the deceased, the learned Tribunal relied upon a decision in Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore , [ 2009(6) ALD 684 ] wherein it was held that the minimum salary for a technical person with a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering (Computers, Electronics or Mechanical) can be taken as Rs.12,000/- p.m. 17. Basing on the material evidence available on record, learned Tribunal held that the appellant Company as well as the 5 th respondent herein are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 27,86,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of OP till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. 18. Basing on the material evidence available on record, learned Tribunal held that the appellant Company as well as the 5 th respondent herein are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 27,86,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of OP till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. 18. In respect of future prospects, it is settled position of law that in case of self-employed persons or those on fixed wages, if the deceased victim was below 40 years, a 50% addition is applicable to the actual income while computing the future prospects. Secondly, if the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, an addition of 30% for future prospects should be applicable, and thirdly, the actual income for the said calculation should be the income after paying tax. In case deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the deceased’s income is typically deducted for personal and living expenses when calculating loss of dependency, as bachelors are assumed to spend more on themselves. All the above principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others , [ 2013 ACJ 1403 ]. 19. The learned Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency based on the deceased’s contribution to the claimants i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- and applied multiplier of ‘18’ (for the age of 21) in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Corporation and another , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ] resulting to Rs.19,44,000/-. Despite P.W.1 stating that Rs.35,00,000/- was spent on deceased’s treatment, The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, quantifies the medical bills paid towards treatment to the deceased to a tune of Rs.5,59,034/-, thereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim granting a total compensation of Rs.27,86,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the calculation made by the learned Tribunal is erroneous, and the learned Tribunal ought not to have calculated stating that the deceased was a final year Engineering Student and that in the absence of any proof of income, taking notional income, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m., which is held to be erroneous thereby, contended that the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in adding 50% towards future prospects instead of adding 40% in respect of unemployed deceased, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) 22. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.27,86,500/- instead of Rs.25,94,500/-, thereby the learned Tribunal granted excess compensation to the claimants, which is erroneous. 23. We have given our earnest consideration to the pleadings and perused the record. 24. Admittedly, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Tribunal by way of counter-affidavit are only denial of facts, but there is no pleading with respect to the excess compensation. Apart from that, neither any witnesses were examined nor there were any documents marked on behalf of the appellant Company except marking Insurance policy document. However, learned counsel for the appellant contends that when there is no income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought not to have taken notional income. But taking into consideration the evidence on record as well as the judgment in Ramulamma (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have minimum of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and that even IVth class employees are also getting minimum of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. depending upon their service. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be considered as Rs.12,000/- per month, and therefore held that the income of the graduates in Engineering i.e. B.Tech cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise, it amounts to neglecting the ground of reality. 25. It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal erred in calculating the future prospects at 50% instead of 40%. This Court observes that when the Tribunal passed its award on 28.03.2017, it was guided by the then prevailing decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh (supra), which permitted an addition of 50% towards future prospects for a bachelor. It was only later, in National Insurance Co. This Court observes that when the Tribunal passed its award on 28.03.2017, it was guided by the then prevailing decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh (supra), which permitted an addition of 50% towards future prospects for a bachelor. It was only later, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] decided on 31.10.2017, that the Constitution Bench settled the law by fixing the addition at 40% for self-employed persons below 40 years of age. Thus, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for applying the ratio of Rajesh (supra), which held the field on the date of the award. 26. Even otherwise, compensation under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT is not a matter of rigid computation but of ensuring “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Act. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that there is no upper limit or restriction in awarding compensation and that the duty of the Court is to secure a fair, reasonable and equitable amount rather than a strictly mathematical figure. 27. This Court observes that the present case has remained pending for nearly 15 years. The parents of the deceased, who lost their young son aged 21 years in the prime of his life, have had to endure protracted litigation. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , [ AIR 1995 SC 755 ] , the Supreme Court held that while assessing compensation, Courts must also consider non-pecuniary damages such as mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience suffered by the claimants. In this backdrop, even if the future prospects are recalculated at 40% as per Pranay Sethi (supra) , the prolonged delay and litigation expenses faced by the claimants would justify an additional amount to balance equities. 28. It is also relevant that under the conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.16,650/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), as explained in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur , [ (2020) 11 SCC 1 ] , fixed these amounts at Rs.25,000/- each, subject to future revision. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), as explained in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur , [ (2020) 11 SCC 1 ] , fixed these amounts at Rs.25,000/- each, subject to future revision. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 recognized the right of parents to filial consortium, fixing it at Rs.40,000/- each, which also deserves marginal enhancement in line with present standards. 29. This Court considers it appropriate to sustain the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, despite the 40% future prospects instead of 50% by granting corresponding enhancement under conventional heads and towards litigation/incidental expenses. This adjustment approximately equals the difference of Rs.1,92,000/- pointed out by the appellant. 30. Even otherwise, the Act is a beneficial legislation. It is indeed a settled principle of law that compensation in cases of motor vehicle accidents must be just, fair, and reasonable, so as to provide solace to the dependents of the deceased. The deceased being a bright and promising student, whose untimely death in the motor accident has left the dependents in profound grief and financial distress. The loss of such a life at a very early age cannot be measured merely in monetary terms, and the compensation awarded must ideally reflect not only the present dependency but also the future prospects of the deceased. 31. Accordingly, this Court holds that the overall compensation determined by the Tribunal represents “just compensation” in terms of Section 168 of the Act. The total award is therefore sustained, and no reduction is warranted. 32. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2477 of 2017 is disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.