JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. This MACMA is filed by the appellants/claimants assailing the Award, dt.06.02.2018, in OP.No.994 of2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs/STs(POA) Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge at Nalgonda, for enhancement. 2. Heard Sri Sakinala Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Poreddy Venkat Reddy, filed a petition under Section 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that took place on 29.01.2012. On the fateful day, after completion of process duty at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, while the deceased was returning to Yadagirigutta Police Station on his pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 K 1356, when he reached near Kondamadugu Mettu, near Indian Petrol Bunk near Bibinagar Village at about 2.00 a.m., he dashed to a lorry bearing No.AP- 36-XC-4246, which was parked in a negligent manner and sustained several injuries and died on the spot. 5. A case in Crime No.12 of 2012 of Bibinagar Police Station, Nalgonda District, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the lorry. 6. The claimants contended that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale & healthy and working as Police Constable 2117 in Yadagirigutta Police Station and used to earn Rs.21,749/- per month, and on account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their only breadwinner. The 1 st respondent being the driver-cum-owner and 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 7. The Tribunal after due enquiry and examining the evidence available on record, held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent-driver and awarded an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- as against the claim of Rs.28,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 9. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of driver of the lorry as well as the deceased and erroneously fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and deducted 25% out of the total compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [2009] 6 SCC 121 , and thus, prayed to allow the appeal enhancing the compensation. 11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appear for respondent-insurance company submitted that fixing of liability on the part of the deceased towards contributory negligence is justifiable, and while supporting the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, contended that the interference of this Court is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have taken note of the respective submissions made on either side and perused the record. 13. As regards the findings of the Tribunal in fixing contributory negligence @ 25% , from a perusal of the Sketch Map of offence panchanama and MVI Report, i.e., Ex.A5 and A7, it is evident that lorry was parked on the road without taking any precautionary measures to avert any danger. Normally at odd hours during night at 2.00 a.m., in the absence of precautionary steps being taken in averting any danger, it is beyond the imagination of a prudent person to anticipate that a vehicle would be parked on the road. The deceased had no occasion to sense the parking of the lorry as the accident occurred at midnight 2.00 a.m. This Court undisputedly holds that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased @ 25%, is unreasonable, unjustified and perverse and is accordingly set aside. 14. Now coming to the point of what would be the just and reasonable compensation, as per the salary certificate, the deceased was police constable and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,749/-, and the Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.21,749/-. 14. Now coming to the point of what would be the just and reasonable compensation, as per the salary certificate, the deceased was police constable and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,749/-, and the Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.21,749/-. The deceased being 40 years of age and is working as constable, as per Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra), 30% is to be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,525/-. Thus, the monthly loss of earnings of the deceased would be to Rs.28,274/- (Rs.21,749/- +Rs.6,525/-). As on the date of death, as the dependents are four in all, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.18,850/-p.m. So also, the multiplier of ‘14’ applied by the Tribunal needs no interference, as is in terms of the guidelines issued in Sarla Varma ’s case. 15. Thus, the total loss of earnings of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal of to Rs.31,66,800/-(Rs.18,850/- x 12 x 14), is just and reasonable, and needs no interference. 16. Further, under the conventional head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.40,000/- to 1 st petitioner alone, contrary to the law laid in Pranay Sethi ’s case(supra) and further clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] wherein it was held that Rs.40,000/- each is to be granted towards loss of consortium to wife, children or parent, with an enhancement @ 10% every three years. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, it did not consider for granting enhancement @ 10% every three years, as directed in Pranay Sethi’ s case(supra). 17. In the instant case, since, the accident was occurred before the judgment in Pranay Sethi’ s case(supra), the date of said judgment i.e., 31.07.2017, should be taken as base date for calculating the applicable three-year block periods for enhancement. Thus, as of date, approximately eight years and two months have elapsed, constituting two full block periods of three years each. Thus, each petitioner is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.48,400/- (First block: Rs.40,000/- + 10% = Rs.44,000/-; Second block: Rs.44,000/- + 10% = Rs.48,400/-). Thus, as of date, approximately eight years and two months have elapsed, constituting two full block periods of three years each. Thus, each petitioner is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.48,400/- (First block: Rs.40,000/- + 10% = Rs.44,000/-; Second block: Rs.44,000/- + 10% = Rs.48,400/-). Similarly, for loss of estate & funeral expenses, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/- (First block: Rs.15,000/- + 10% =Rs.16,500/-; Second block: Rs.16,500/- + 10% = Rs.18,150/-). 18. In view of the above findings, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.21749/- per annum 2 Future prospects Rs.6,525/- (30% X 21,749) 3 Total monthly income Rs.28274/- (Rs.21,749/- + Rs.6,525/-) 4 Deductions towards personal expenses. Rs.9,425/- (Rs.28,274/- X 1/3rd) 5 Net Monthly Income Rs.18850/- (Rs.27,274 – Rs.9,425=Rs.18849/- rounded to Rs.18850/-) 6 Annual Income Rs.2,26,200/- (Rs.18,850/- x 12) 7 Multiplier 14 8 Loss of dependency Rs.31,66,800/- (i.e., Rs.2,26,200/- x 14) 9 Consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 4) Rs.1,93,600/- 10 Funeral expenses & Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 11. Total Compensation Rs.33,78,550/- 19. With regard to the deduction of Rs.9,15,000/- made by the Tribunal out of the total compensation determined, it is settled principle of law that no double benefit should be passed on to the claimants while awarding compensation and it must exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rules of 2006. 20. Therefore, the Tribunal, by relying on the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has rightly deducted the said amount of Rs.9,15,000/-, which the claimants have received from the Police Department under Ex.B2 and Ex.B3, on account of the death of the deceased, which needs no interference. Thus, after deducting Rs.9,15,000/- from the total compensation, the just compensation to which the appellants are entitled is Rs.24,63,550/- (Rs.33,78,550 – Rs.9,15,000). 21. Coming to the rate of interest @ 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal, this Court finds it not just and reasonable, and is modified by enhancing to 7.5% p.a., as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra) 22. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed, modifying the Award of the Tribunal, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,30,000/- to Rs.24,63,550/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed, modifying the Award of the Tribunal, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,30,000/- to Rs.24,63,550/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 23. The respondent- insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount as directed above, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 24. The claimants are entitled to the said amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal in OP.No.994 of 2012. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.