JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.794 of 2016 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 15.02.2015 at 7:30 p.m., the deceased/S.Narayana was proceeding on a motor bike bearing No.TS-12EB-9813 on Pargi, Kodangal Road and when he reached neat Rangamapally Gate, lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319 driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner proceeding from Kodangal towards Hyderabad, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over the deceased and he died on the spot. 4. The parents, brothers and un-married sisters of the deceased filed claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 failed to file any counter affidavit while the contesting respondent i.e., Insurance Company has filed its counter denying the occurrence of accident, the age, income of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319 which is insured with them. 6. The Respondent No.4 is the wife of the deceased and she is living separately and thus the petitioners arrayed her as a respondent. 7. She has filed counter affidavit contending that the deceased used to contribute his income to her and that she became a destitute after the death of her husband and therefore, she is entitled to claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 3 and that she is the sole dependent on the earnings of her deceased husband. 8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased S. Narayana S/o Kashappa @ Khasim died on 15.12.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver unknown and lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- against a claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 11. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.10. 12. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have observed that the alleged accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, but that it was only due to the negligence of the deceased and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that as per the contents of the FIR under Ex.A1, the complaint was lodged against an unknown vehicle and that the vehicle insured with them is falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the evidence of PW2 is not trustworthy and that he is not listed as an eye witness in the charge sheet and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have believed his evidence. He further contended that no proof of income is filed by the petitioners and thus an income of Rs.4,500/- per month had to be taken as a notional income, but the Tribunal has wrongly assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excess amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 13. The respondent counsel has submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not need any interference and that it has awarded a just compensation and the same may be upheld. 14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the lorry bearing No. KA-39-6319 was not driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident resulting in the death of the deceased? 2. 14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the lorry bearing No. KA-39-6319 was not driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident resulting in the death of the deceased? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased, in the occurrence of the accident? 3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable? 4. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 5. To what relief? 15. POINT NOS.1 & 2:- a) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 reveals that the complaint is lodged by one E. Kalyan of Rangampally Village and he mentioned that on 15.10.2015 he was informed that one male person died in an accident as he was hit by an unknown vehicle. He stated in the complaint that he went to the scene of offence and he saw that there was a person by name Sardar at the scene of offence and on enquiry, he stated that one male person died in the accident and that he too sustained injuries as he fell down on seeing this accident. Thereafter, he has shifted the deceased to the hospital and he has also noted down the number of the motor bike on which the deceased was travelling. b) In the charge sheet filed under Ex.A2, it is mentioned that the said injured person by name Sardar was shifted to Government Hospital and their investigation revealed that the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319 has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding towards Hyderabad from Kodangal and dashed the Glamour Motor Cycle bearing No.TS- 12EB-9813 from behind. As a result of which the deceased/S. Narayana fell down from the motor cycle and died on the spot and also the accused driver of the lorry has dashed the motorbike of Sardar/LW6 who was proceeding to Kistapur Village from Parigi and that the accused left the scene of offence along with the crime vehicle. As a result of which the deceased/S. Narayana fell down from the motor cycle and died on the spot and also the accused driver of the lorry has dashed the motorbike of Sardar/LW6 who was proceeding to Kistapur Village from Parigi and that the accused left the scene of offence along with the crime vehicle. In this case PW2/P. Narasimhulu is examined as eye witness, his evidence reveals that he was proceeding on his Glamour Motor Cycle bearing No.TS-12EB-9813 from his Village Kistapur towards Parigi and he was behind the motor bike of the deceased and thus, he witnessed the accident and that the lorry overtook his motorcycle and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result the deceased fell down from the bike and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. c) The contention of the appellant counsel is that PW2 is a planted witness and that he is not an eye witness as, his name is not listed in the charge sheet. Mere suggestion was given to PW2 during his cross examination that he is not an eye witness which was denied by him and that is not enough to dislodge his evidence. Not citing the name of eye witness in the charge sheet is not fatal to the present case. d) PW2 has deposed about the occurrence of the accident and the investigation done by the Police as revealed from the charge sheet under Ex.A2 proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the lorry driver and that there is no negligence of the deceased. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 16. Point No.3:- e) Another contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation to the claimants. f) The deceased is stated to be aged 25 years and was running a Tiffin Centre and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. A perusal of Ex.A4/PME Report reveals the age of the deceased as 32-35. No proof is filed with regard to the income of the deceased. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [(2011) 12 SCC 236], the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. No proof is filed with regard to the income of the deceased. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [(2011) 12 SCC 236], the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased was running a Tiffin Centre as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas’s case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month and the same amount is taken by the Tribunal also. h) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 , 40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 32-35 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 6,000+2400 would give Rs.8,400/- per month, which comes to Rs.8400/- x 12 = Rs.1,00,800/- per annum. i) The claim petition is filed by the parents, brothers, un- married sisters and respondent No.4 is the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly taken the parents and wife as dependents, but not the sisters and brothers, because they are dependent on their parents who are the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3rd deduction need to be made to the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,00,800/- (-) Rs.33,600/-). j) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as 32-35 years. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A4 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ]. The deceased being aged 32-35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘16. Therefore, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the extent of Rs.10,75,200/-. The deceased being aged 32-35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘16. Therefore, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the extent of Rs.10,75,200/-. k) With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’, in the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years. l) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi ’s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 who are parents and respondent No.4/wife of the deceased would get Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,44,000/- instead of Rs.48,000/-. With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- and loss of estate Rs.18,000/- would be just and proper. m) The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company and no appeal or Cross Objection filed by the claimants. Now the question is whether this Court can enhance the compensation in an appeal by Insurance Company. n) In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, (2013) 16 SCC 719 , the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,300/- along with interest towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the respondents has filed an Appeal before the High Court and the High Court has partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,800/-. Being aggrieved by this Judgment, the legal representatives of the deceased filed Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has awarded the compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony. The Apex Court has awarded the compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony. It has further held that without a claimants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. o) Similarly, in Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors, [(2021) 166 SCC 467] , the claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.40,17,602/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal before the High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.49,15,376/-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company claiming reduction of compensation was dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, it has held that in the matters of Motor Accident Claims, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the claimants. By holding so, the Apex Court has modified the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. p) In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Vs. Dusari Pramila and Another, [MACMA.No.88 of 2014] , the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before this High Court and a Bench of this High Court has held that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction of this Court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.15,82,600/- with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. q) Thus, in all the claimants would be entitled to the following amounts:- SI. No. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 10,75,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (48,000 x 3) 1,44,000/- 3. q) Thus, in all the claimants would be entitled to the following amounts:- SI. No. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 10,75,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (48,000 x 3) 1,44,000/- 3. Loss of Estate 18,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 18,000/- Total 12,55,200/- r) Therefore, it is opined that the enhancement of compensation from 12,25,000 to that of Rs.12,55,200 would be justified in the present case. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 17. POINT NO.4:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that order and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference with regard to the liability of respondents and the same is upheld. But with regard to quantum of compensation, it needs to be enhanced from Rs.12,25,000/- to 12,55,200/-. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 18. POINT NO.5: In the result, the appeal is disposed of upholding the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-39-6319. Further, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.12,25,000/- to Rs.12,55,200/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.