JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants-petitioners under Section 173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) against the Award and decree, dated 23.08.2019,in O.P.No.253 of 2017 passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’)wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,20,500/- with interest @7.5% per annum to the petitioners. 2. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and M.Sathish Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Perused the record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the dependents of the deceased Musle Balajee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.03.2017 at about 6:15 P.M. near Kummaru Thanda Village. Petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor sons, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. 5. On 01.03.2017, the deceased and his cousin brother Musle Sanjeev were proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP- 01-AG-1955 from Dharmapuri Village towards Thanda Village to meet their relatives and at about 6:15 p.m., when they reached near Kummarithanda Village, meantime, one bus bearing No.TS- 01-UB-4508 which is hired by TGSRTC, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back side, due to which the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries and deceased died on the spot. The accident had occurred purely due to negligent driving of driver of Bus bearing No.TS-01-UB-4508. 6. The police, Utnoor registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the said Bus and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against him. 7. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. 7. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. The deceased is having agricultural land in Survey No.29/1 to an extent of Ac.2.38 guntas and he used to earn a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from it. The deceased also used to work in M/s. Ramesh Cloth Merchant Shop at Ichoda and used to get salary of Rs.9,500/- per month and contribute the same for the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and mental agony and they also lost final support. Therefore, the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the matter and remained ex parte. 9. Respondent No.3 - insurance company filed counter- affidavit denying the material averments made in the petition including age, avocation and income of the deceased and also manner of the accident. It is further averred that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the death of Musle Balajee S/o M.Namdev who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.03.2017 at about 6:30 p.m., near Kummari Thanda village, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.TS-01-UB-4508 by its driver i.e., respondent No.1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AG-1955 as necessary parties in the original petition, since the motorcycle was also involved in the accident? 4. To what relief?” 11. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and got examined the eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked one Jagadish as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.X.1 and X.2. 12. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and got examined the eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked one Jagadish as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.X.1 and X.2. 12. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the counsel and after considering the entire material on record, held that respondent No.1 being driver, respondent no.2 being the owner, respondent No.3 being insurance company and respondent No.4, who hired the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay of compensation of Rs.9,20,500/- with interest @7.5% per annum to the petitioners. 13. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of TSRTC bearing No.TS-01-UB-4508, erred in not granting total compensation amount as claimed by the appellants. (ii) Though deceased was aged about 37 years and earning Rs.9,500/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal without considering the evidence in proper manner erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. (iii) The Tribunal erred in granting meagre amount of compensation under ‘loss of estate’, loss of consortium and funeral expenses which is against the rulings laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. (iv) The learned Tribunal failed to grant just compensation and erred in awarding low rate of interest. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and having perused the entire material placed on record, the following points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what extent? (ii) To what relief? 15. Issue Nos.1 and 2 The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime bus. (ii) To what relief? 15. Issue Nos.1 and 2 The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime bus. The main grievance of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.9,500/- and in proof of same P.W.1 filed Ex.A.6-salary certificate and to substantiate the same she also got examined P.W.3, who deposed that he is running a shop in the name and style of M/s. Ramesh Textiles at Ichoda and deceased was working in his shop as Muneem from 2009 onwards and he is drawing salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. In spite of the same, the Tribunal did not believe the version of P.Ws.1 and 3 and Ex.A.6. The learned Tribunal erroneously taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd , 2011 (6) ALD 75 16. It is settled law that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa v. State of Bihar , 2001(8) SCC 197 it was held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities. Further, in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others , [2025 SCC Online SC 1092,] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs.10,000/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under: “5. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed at Rs.500/- per month for every successive year. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-” 17. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-” 17. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique’s case and Latha Wadhwa’s case (cited both supra) and looking at the avocation of the deceased and considering the ground realities, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month (Rs.9000 x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-) per annum. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 , since the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 40% would be added towards future prospectus. If the said principle is applied the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/-(Rs.1,08,000 + Rs.43,200) (40% addition). Since the petitioners are 5 in number, in the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ] , 1/4 th of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, which comes to Rs.37,800 (-) (Rs.1,51,200x¼) 18. As per the column No.4 of table in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma as 36 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased age is ‘15’. Further, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘15’ and the same is not disputed by the respondents. After applying the same, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,13,400 x 15 = 17,01,000/-. 19 . The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 20. Appellant No.1 being wife of the is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards spousal consortium’, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 21. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being son and daughter of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards ‘parental consortium’, as per Nanu Ram’s case alis Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 22. 21. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being son and daughter of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards ‘parental consortium’, as per Nanu Ram’s case alis Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 22. Further, considering appellant No.4 being the father and appellant No.5 mother of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-each under the head of ‘ filial consortium’ as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference: 24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.9000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income + 40%) = 43,200 Rs.1,08,000/ = Rs.1,51,200/- iii) Since dependents are five in number ¼ has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,51,200 /- (–) Rs.37,800/- = Rs.1,13,400/- iv) Since the deceased is aged about 37 years, the relevant multiplier is 15 and same is applied, the dependency would come to Rs.17,01,000/- (Rs.1,13,400/- x 15) Rs. 17, 01,000/ - v) Claimants’ are also entitlement amount under conventional heads i.e., Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of consortium + loss of filial consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 + 96,800 = Rs. 2,78,300/ - Total Rs. 19,79,300/ - 25 . Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.19,79,300/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.9,20,500/- by the learned Tribunal. 26 . Hence, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,20,500/- to Rs. Rs.19,79,300/- (Rupees Ninteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.