JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018, dated 30.11.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- on account of death of 1 st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sheshaiah, (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in accident occurred on 10.11.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018 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 of the lorry driver. It is contended that on 10.11.2017, the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler TVS Xcel bearing No.AP-27-7498 and when he reached at the outskirts of Marichetlapalem Village, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from rear side and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, as such and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle and seized the said lorry. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads. 3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as skilled worker in Granite Factory and also used to attend other works after the shift of the deceased from the factory, including agricultural labour on all Sundays. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry and respondent No.3-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry and respondent No.3-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, file 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 driver of the lorry offending lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 as well as the deceased who was rider TVS Xcel bearing No.AP-27-X-7498 were both not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. 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 deceased Kora Sheshaiah S/o N. Bagaiah died on 10.11.2017 in a road accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? iii) To what relief? 5. 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.13,93,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 6. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the deceased was aged 40 years at the date of accident and working as skilled/technical worker in granite cutting industry in Cheemakurthi as well as working as mason and also agricultural labour in evening hours daily, and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads. 7. 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. In cross Examination, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.12 were marked. 7. 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. In cross Examination, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.12 were marked. Learned counsel further contended that PW1 is the wife of the deceased narrated the whole incident, but she is not eye-witness. PW2-Sri E.Koteswar Rao, who is known person to the deceased worked along with the deceased in the granites industry deposed that the income of the deceased would be Rs.300/- to 350/- per day. PW3-Sri Akula Srinivasa Rao, who is also a casual labour in the Granite factory where the deceased worked deposed that PW3 and deceased used to earn Rs.600/- per 8 hours by working in the Granite Factory. 8. It is further contended that deceased was having technical talent i.e., cutting, polishing, loading and unloading , laying of granites and also the deceased would transport the granites in and around surround areas for which he used to earn extra income and in total, deceased would earned Rs.800/- per day. Besides the above ground, it is contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the agricultural income, where the petitioner was having agriculture land to an extent of Ac-2.0½ Gts and earn extra income from the agricultural land and also by attending agricultural work. Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 is the pattadar passbook which shows the name of the deceased as owner of the said agricultural land. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of 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.7,000/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 10. None appear for respondent No.1 & 3. 11. Heard Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on record. 12. 10. None appear for respondent No.1 & 3. 11. Heard Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on record. 12. Admittedly, 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 respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point 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: 13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 10.11.2017. The deceased was worker in Granite cutting industry in Cheemakurthi. There is no salary certificate of the deceased which shows that the deceased was earning Rs.350/- to Rs.800/- per day as claimed by the appellants and also there is no other documentary proof such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month. But looking at the records available and the averments made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that the deceased was a worker and having technical skill i.e., cutting of granites, polishing granites and laying of granites and in the case of Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 14. For considering the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is necessary to ascertain the actual income of the deceased. The appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working in the Granite Factory and other miscellaneous and agricultural work and learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, which appears to be meager. Hence considering the ground realities and also the fact that deceased was a skilled worker working in Granite Cutting factory and aged about 40 years at the date of accident and also following the law laid down in the judgment passed in Latha Wadhwa’s case (cited supra) , this Court is of the opinion that the deceased would obviously earn Rs.300/- per day, accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. 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 40 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.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are six dependants in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,13,400/- (Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.37,800/-) for assessing the compensation. 15. As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed fixed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased’s age is ‘15’. Thus, the total loss of dependency to the petitioner would come to Rs.17,01,000/- (1,51,200/- x 15). 16. 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). 17. 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 spousal consortium’ as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 18. Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 being children of the deceased, the appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400 x 3) under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 19. Appellant Nos.5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased, the appellant Nos.5 and 6 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra) 20. Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 19. Appellant Nos.5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased, the appellant Nos.5 and 6 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra) 20. 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.” 21. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 22. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.9,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) = Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- = Rs.1,51,200/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income – 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,51,200/- (–) Rs.37,800/- = Rs.1,13,400/- iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.1,13,400/- x 15 = Rs.17,01,000/ - v) Claimants’ entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.1,45,200 + 96,800 = Rs.3,26,700/ - Total Rs.20,27,700/ - 23. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.20,27,700/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.13,93,000/- by the learned Tribunal. 24. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 7.5 % per annum, which needs no interference. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced amount. 25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. 24. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 7.5 % per annum, which needs no interference. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced amount. 25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,27,700/- enhancing the compensation from Rs. 13,93,000/- to Rs. 20,27,700 /- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount 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 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. 26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.