JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2257 of 2012 dated 26.03.2014. 2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards compensation in favour of the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein), which is excessive and on higher side. The Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly income of the deceased – A.Arun Kumar at Rs.30,000/- per month without any basis and the Tribunal ought not to have come to a conclusion that the deceased is able to earn atleast Rs.30,000/- per month basing on the loan installments and shop rents paid by the deceased. Further he submits that 50% of the income has to be deducted as the deceased is an unmarried person and prayed to allow the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case but awarded less compensation. In fact just compensation has to be awarded and prayed to dismiss the appeal and award enhanced compensation. 5.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners have filed O.P under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1B of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 140(C) of MV Act with a prayer to pass an award for Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards compensation for the death of A.Arun Kumar in a road traffic accident. 5.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 - petitioner No.3 are the parents and sister of A.Arun Kumar. A.Arun Kumar had been to Sabarimalai along with his friend by name Santosh Kumar and they were returning to Hyderabad on 19.01.2012, they boarded one private travels bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600. 5.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 - petitioner No.3 are the parents and sister of A.Arun Kumar. A.Arun Kumar had been to Sabarimalai along with his friend by name Santosh Kumar and they were returning to Hyderabad on 19.01.2012, they boarded one private travels bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600. When the bus reached near SC colony, Gummalakunta Village, Banthalapalli Mandal, Ananthapur District on National Highway No.205, at about 04.00 hours the driver of the bus without noticing the stationed lorry which was stopped on the left side of the road, ramed due to high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. A.Arun Kumar and other persons sustained severe injuries, died on the spot. The deceased and another person died on the spot. Stationed lorry bearing No.AP-03-TA-2101 was stopped on the left side of the road due to some technical defect. Deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Dharmavaram for postmortem. On the complaint, a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 was registered by Police Banthalapalli, Ananthapur District. 5.3 Deceased – A.Arun Kumar was hale and healthy, was a bachelor and aged about 32 years at the time of accident. He was doing kirana business and also doing real estate business, earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month and he is the only earning member of the family. Due to premature and unexpected death of the deceased, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners were put to hardship, they lost their bread winner and claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 6. Respondent No.4 herein - respondent No.1 – owner of the bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600 and respondent No.5 herein -respondent No.3 – owner of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 03 TA 2101 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. Appellant - respondent No.2 has filed counter in the O.P and disputed the age and income of the deceased, validity of the driving licence of the driver of the bus and also the accident. It further contended that the claim made by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 –petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. 8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1.Whether the accident occurred on 19.01.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600 causing death of the deceased? 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation? 8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1.Whether the accident occurred on 19.01.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600 causing death of the deceased? 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – P.Ramesh and also examined PW3 – A.Srui Babu @ Suresh Babu and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. No witnesses are examined on behalf of appellant – respondent No.2. 10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the petitioners – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, has partly allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- together with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the entire amount is realized payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondent No.4 herein and appellant herein jointly and severally. 11. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material. 12. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 –petitioners and if so? 2. Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.2257 of 2012 dated 26.03.2014 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it requires interference of this Court or not? 13. Appellant has challenged the quantum in the appeal. 14. The learned Tribunal has not considered Ex.A15 – salary certificate with that of the evidence of PW3 on the premise that when the deceased is running kirana shop, it is not possible for him to work as a Site Supervisor to run the Construction business and thereby discarded the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A15. The learned Tribunal observed that the deceased used to pay Rs.5,500/- per month towards rent, Rs.6,000/- and odd towards loan installments and held that the deceased might have been earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month and unless he is able to earn atleast an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month there was no necessity for him to run a business by paying Rs.6,500/- towards loan installments and Rs.5,500/- towards rent of the premises and arrived at a conclusion that the earning of the deceased is taken as Rs.30,000/- per month. 15. 15. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.30,000/- per month, out of that deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses, also deducted Rs.11,000/- towards loan installments and rent to the premises and the contribution of the deceased to the family is arrived at Rs.11,500/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the age of the petitioner No.2 [respondent No.2 herein] as 47 and applied the multiplier ‘13’. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Income Rs.11,500/- per month 2. Annual income Rs.1,38,000/- (11,500 x 12) 3. Multiplier Rs.17,94,000/- (1,38,000 x 13) 4. Funeral expenditure and transportation Rs.6,000/- 5. Total Rs.18,00,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.4 and appellant herein). O.P. against respondent No.3 is dismissed. 16. The deceased was running kirana store by paying Rs.5,500/- towards rent and also paying an amount of Rs.6,500/- towards loan installments, taking into consideration of the evidence of PW1 with that of Ex.A8 – bank statement, Exs.A9 & A10 - rental agreements, the earning of the deceased is taken as Rs.20,000/- per month, which will meet the ends of justice and the just compensation can be arrived at. 17. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners have stated the age of the deceased as 32 years in the claim petition, the same is also mentioned in Ex.A2- CC of Charge Sheet, Ex.A3-CC of Inquest and Ex.A4 CC of PME. Hence the age of the deceased is taken as 32 years and the personal expenses is deducted at 50% as the deceased is bachelor and the appropriate multiplier in the age group of 31 to 35 is ‘16’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 18. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.20,000/- 2. Deduct 50% towards personal expenses Rs.10,000/- (20,000 – [50% of 20,000) 3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘16’ Rs.19,20,000/- (1,20,000 x 16) 5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each claimant) Rs.1,20,000/- 8. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.22,20,000/- 19. Income Rs.20,000/- 2. Deduct 50% towards personal expenses Rs.10,000/- (20,000 – [50% of 20,000) 3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘16’ Rs.19,20,000/- (1,20,000 x 16) 5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each claimant) Rs.1,20,000/- 8. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.22,20,000/- 19. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683. 20. In the result, MACMA.No.3335 of 2014 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 26.03.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2257 of 2012, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.18,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.22,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent No.4 and appellant herein - respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein [petitioner Nos.1 and 2] are entitled for Rs.8,88,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) Respondent No.3 herein [petitioner No.3] is entitled for Rs.4,44,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.