JUDGMENT : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by the insurance company being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.nagar, by the claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Since both these appeals are filed against the same award dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024. 5. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024 and respondent No.3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024. 6. For convenience, M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 is taken up as lead case, in so far as facts are concerned. 7. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under: 7.1. One Vadavalasa Bala Krishna, was on duty as a driver and driving a Scorpio bearing No.OD-23A-3333, towards Cuttack with two passengers on 06.07.2016 and when he reached a petrol bunk near Govind Nagar Village, a truck bearing No.AP-05TU-9198, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came out of petrol bunk and collided with Scorpio vehicle and as a result the said Bala Krishna died on spot. The police of Golanthara in Ganjam District, Orissa State, registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2016 under Section 304-A of the India Penal Code against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is driver, respondent No.2 is owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is insurer of the crime vehicle. 8. Appellant No.1 being wife of the deceased, appellant No.2 being son and appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016 before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. 8. Appellant No.1 being wife of the deceased, appellant No.2 being son and appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016 before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 filed counter denying allegations and contended that accident has taken place due to negligence of deceased himself, who dashed the truck from behind and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 9. The Tribunal, basing on the above pleadings, framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? (ii) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.07.2016 at about 2.45 P.M. on NH-16, in front of Indian Petrol Pump near Govinda Nagar village, Ganjam District, Odisha, was due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Truck bearing No.AP-05U-9198, by its driver? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and from whom? (iv) To what relief? 10. Subsequently, the issues were re-cast as follows:- (i) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.07.2016 at about 2.45 P.M. in front of Indian petrol Bunk near Govinda Nagar Village, Ganjam District, Odisha, was due to the negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the Truck bearing No.AP-05TU-9198? (ii) Whether Vadavalasa Bala Krishna died as a result of injuries sustained in the said accident? (iii) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of Vadavalasa Bala Krishna? (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from which of the respondents? (v) What relief? 11. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1-Office copy of Insurance Policy was marked. 12. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2023 allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.20,83,072/- as compensation and directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the award, dated 07.11.2023, the present appeals are filed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and further contended that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,398 /- per month erroneously. 14. Aggrieved by the award, dated 07.11.2023, the present appeals are filed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and further contended that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,398 /- per month erroneously. 14. He further contended that the appellants have lost their only earning member of the family at a very young age and therefore, the appellants are put to shock, mental agony and further appellant No.1 has lost her conjugal rights at a very younger age. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- in terms of judgment passed in Sushila and others v. Ram Swaroop and others , [2023 ACJ 2028 SC] 15. Per contra, Learned counsel for respondent No.3/ appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the tribunal has grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.9,398/- per month, which is very high, without there being any proof of income. He would further submit that the accident has taken place because of negligence of the deceased, who was driving the vehicle at a high speed and whereas truck was coming out of petrol bunk slowly. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submitted that driver of the truck was not having valid driving license, as on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company ought not to have been fastened with the liability. He further submitted that interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is very high and the same is liable to be reduced. 16. Perusal of impugned award would disclose that on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the driving license which was marked as Ex.A8, the Tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 30 years and rightly applied multiplier 17 and deducted 1/4 th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, basing on the information published by the Labour Bureau of Government of India, wherein, the minimum wages for a driver working in private motor transport in Telangana in the year 2016 was Rs.313.25 paisa per day, the Tribunal considered monthly income as Rs.9,398/-, and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards for funeral expenses and sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 17. 17. The impugned award would further disclose that the Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and did not agree with the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal has observed that the driver of the truck ought to have been careful while joining the highway and should not have merged without observing the oncoming traffic, as vehicles on the highway are typically move at high speed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the contention of respondent No.3- Insurance Company that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and also in view of the fact that respondent No.3-Insurance Company has failed to establish its contentions by placing any evidence or material on record. 18. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding loss of consortium to all the appellants in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680 , Therefore, the consortium awarded by the Tribunal is required to be modified and all the appellants are entitled to Rs. 44,000/- each. 19. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is on higher side and therefore, the same is modified to 7.5% per annum. The appellants have not placed any material or evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- as monthly income and therefore, the same cannot be considered. 20. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation amount is revised as under: Income Rs.13,157[(9,398+3,759)40%future prospects] Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.3,289.25 (i.e., one-fourth of Rs.13,157) Total Monthly income Rs.9,868(i.e.,Rs.13,157- Rs.3,289.25) Multiplier 17 Loss of dependency Rs.20,13,072(i.e.,Rs.9,868*17*12) Compensation for loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/-*4) Rs.1,76,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation to be paid: Rs.22,19,072/- 21. Both the Appeals are partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.20,83,072/- to Rs.22,19,072/-and the said modified amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024, are liable to pay the said compensation amount jointly and severally within a period of eight (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid. The respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024, are liable to pay the said compensation amount jointly and severally within a period of eight (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.