JUDGMENT : (NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.) The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2014, dated 06.06.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of 1 st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sadanandam, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 06.04.2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata lorry driver. It is contended that on 06.04.2013, the deceased along with his friend were proceeding to Huzurabad on Hero-Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-10-AG-8128 and when they reached near Thumanapally filter bed, the driver of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB- 8995 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from rear side and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result, the deceased and his friend fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2013 under Section 304- A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the lorry and made responsible for the accident. 3. The contention of the petitioners was that, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, Parkal Cross road, Peddapapaiahpally. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition as against respondent No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed. The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition as against respondent No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed. The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 – Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e., TATA Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB-8995, driven by its driver/R-1? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for and against whom? iii) To what relief? 6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.6,74,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioners/claimants, that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- by working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, Parkal Cross road, Peddapapaiahpally, but the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased. As far as compensation of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, Parkal Cross road, Peddapapaiahpally. As far as compensation of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, Parkal Cross road, Peddapapaiahpally. However, the learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Lorry, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased’s income at Rs.3,000/- per month and also not awarded compensation under the head of ‘parental consortium and ‘filial consortium’ as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram , [ 2018 (18) SCC 130 ]. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd , [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , wherein in the absence of any income proof, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the income of a ‘coolie’ as Rs.4,500/- per month, however the learned Tribunal even without considering the said judgment has taken the deceased income as Rs.3,000/- which is very meager and prayed this Court to enhance the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- in terms of the Ramachandrappa Judgment (cited supra) and prayed this Court to allow the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 11. Since, the claim against respondent No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed on 28.11.2014 before the learned Tribunal, notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with. None appeared for respondent No.2. 12. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Ms.Padmaja, learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on record. 13. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondent No.1, age of the deceased and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 14. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 06.04.2013. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondent No.1, age of the deceased and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 14. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 06.04.2013. The petitioners claimed that deceased was working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, Parkal Cross road, Peddapapaiahpally, however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioners to show that the deceased was working as a weigh bridge operator. The owner of the Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge has not been examined nor any document is filed to show that the said owner was paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the deceased. It is apparent that no other documentary proof such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In the present circumstances, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd , [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , wherein the income of a deceased was taken as monthly income Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of such documentary proof with regard to income of the deceased and considering the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001(8) SCC 197 wherein 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 by the Courts. 15. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be meager. Hence considering the ground realities and following the judgment passed in Ramachandrappa’s case and Latha Wadhwa’s case (cited supra) the deceased who was hale and healthy obviously would earn Rs.150/- per day and the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.4,500/-. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 and considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 and considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are four in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.56,700/- (Rs.75,600/- (-) Rs.18,900/-). 16. As per the column No.4 of table in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] , and considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased’s age is ‘16’. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,07,200/- (56,700/- x 16). 17. 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). 18. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the wife of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 19. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being children of the deceased, the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards ‘parental consortium’, as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 20. Appellant Nos.4 being the mother of the deceased, the appellant No.4 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards ‘filial consortium’ as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra). 21. In Sarla Verma’s case (cited above) , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 22. 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. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference 23. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.4,500/- X 12 = Rs.54,000/- ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) = Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income – 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.75,600/- (–) Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.59,700/- x 16 = Rs.9,07,200/ - v) Claimants’ entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 + 48,400 = Rs.2,29,900/ - Total Rs.11,37,100/ - 24. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.11,37,100/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.6,74,800/- by the learned Tribunal. 25. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 9 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 9 % on the enhanced amount. 26. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.11,37,100/- . Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,74,800/- to Rs. Rs.11,37,100/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand and One Hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 9 % p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 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. 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 27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.