JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Adilabad in MVOP.No.31 of 2020, dated 25.03.2021, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,800/- only against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/- in a case of death. 2.1 Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2 is the son and appellant No.3 is the mother of the deceased Munde Madhav. 2.2 It is stated in the claim petition that on 29.10.2019 Munde Madhav was going on to Gudihathnoor after visiting his in-laws house at Echoda and he reached Mannur village on his motor cycle bearing No.TS-01-EF-2897 at 06.30 p.m., the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-T-3888 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed him from behind, as a result, Munde Madhav fell on the road sustained severe bleeding injury over head and all over the body and died on the spot. The dead body was shifted to RIMS hospital. On the complaint given by Chate Sambhaji a case in Crime No.110 of 2019 was registered for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC against the respondent No.1. 2.3 It is further contended in the claim petition that deceased worked as a lorry driver under one Civil contractor by name Arun, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.200/- on every working day, he was aged about 30 years, was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of the family, due to the unfortunate death of the deceased, petitioners have suffered loss and lost their bread winner and their earnings have come to stand still and they claimed Rs.40,00,000/- but due to paucity of money they have restricted their compensation amount to Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter contending that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant and they also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased, false case is registered against them by managing the police and prayed to dismiss the Petition. 4. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter contending that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant and they also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased, false case is registered against them by managing the police and prayed to dismiss the Petition. 4. Respondent No.3 has filed a separate counter contending that the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and in fact accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased who drove the vehicle in a rash manner and came in contact with the offending lorry. The liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to provisions under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Munde Madhav died in the accident that occurred on 29.10.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP01T- 3888 by respondent No.1 or was there any contributory negligence on the part of deceased in riding Motorcycle bearing No.TS-01-EF-2897? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Appellant No.1 was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence is adduced by the respondents nor marked any documents. 7. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of the parties arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was aged about 30 years, added 40% future prospects and deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier applied is ‘17’ and awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,800/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the original petition (21.01.2020) till the date of deposit or realization with proportionate costs. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that on the date of the accident deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.200/- on every working day as a lorry driver. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that on the date of the accident deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.200/- on every working day as a lorry driver. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the earning of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month only and erred in granting meager amount of compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head of loss of love and affection and prayed to grant the difference of Rs.6,45,200/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not required as he is challenging the quantum, the same is recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 13.03.2025. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the salary of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month and counsel conceded to award Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has only challenged the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The evidence of PW1 is that her husband used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of accident and that due to sudden death of her husband they have lost their sole bread earner, she lost her husband’s love and affection, appellant No.2 has lost his father and appellant No.3 has lost her son. Though PW1 is cross examined by the respondents, expect putting suggestion that Ex.A6 salary certificate is created for the purpose of the case nothing more is elicited from her. 13. There is no dispute that the deceased is a driver by profession which is fortified by Ex.A7. Ex.A6 is the salary certificate issued by PW3, which goes to show that the deceased last drawn salary for the month of September 2019 is Rs.15,000/- (Rs.12,000/- as salary and Rs.3,000/- in the shape of batta). PW3 is the employer of the deceased Munde Madhav, his evidence is that the deceased used to work under him as a driver on his lorry bearing No.AP-01-X-0787 since two years and he used to pay Rs.12,000/- per month towards salary and apart from that he used to pay Rs.200/- per day on every working day. PW3 is the employer of the deceased Munde Madhav, his evidence is that the deceased used to work under him as a driver on his lorry bearing No.AP-01-X-0787 since two years and he used to pay Rs.12,000/- per month towards salary and apart from that he used to pay Rs.200/- per day on every working day. In his cross examination he stated that he is showing the driver particulars of the deceased in his income tax returns but he did not file a copy of the same and he do not maintain acquittance register nor he informed the labour department about the deceased employment and he has not deducted provident fund of the deceased. 14. Accident occurred on 29.10.2019, the deceased being the driver under PW3, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and added Rs.100/- towards batta on every working day and arrived at Rs.12,000/-. Though PW3 has not filed any record to show that he is showing the salary of the deceased in income tax returns but as a driver he might have been earning Rs.12,000/- per month and the batta paid by PW3 to the deceased is at the rate of Rs.200/- per day on every working day. 15. This Court is of the view that if 15 working days are taken into consideration which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month (15 x 200) and the total salary of the deceased comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. 16.1 The Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] held at paragraph Nos.21.1, 21.2 and 21.3 as under: “21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” 16.2 Appellants are entitled for loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each and loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited case. 17.1 The determination of compensation is as under : Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation 1. Monthly income Rs.15,000/- 2. Add 40% future prospects (as per National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 ) Rs.21,000/- ((15,000 x 40%) = 6,000) + 15,000 3. Annual income Rs.2,52,000/- (21,000 x 12) 4. 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses Rs.2,52,000/- x (1/3) = Rs.84,000/- 5 Total Income Rs.1,68,000/- (2,52,000 - 84,000) 6 Multiplier ‘17’ As per Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) Rs.28,56,000/- (1,68,000 x 17) 7 Loss of love and affection (Rs.50,000/- each) Rs.1,50,000/- 8 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.1,20,000/- 9 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 10 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 11 Total compensation Rs.31,56,000/- 17.2 Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683] 18.1 The total compensation awarded is Rs.31,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (21.01.2020) till payment. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded along with costs and interests. 18.2 Appellant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is entitled for 40% (Rs.12,62,400/- + costs and accrued interest thereon). Appellant No.2 (son of the deceased) is entitled for 40% (Rs.12,62,400/- with proportionate costs and interest). Appellant No.3 (mother of the deceased) is entitled 20% i.e., Rs.6,31,200/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon. Appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 are permitted to withdraw their entire amount with proportionate costs and interest. Insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned, his share of Rs.12,62,400/- with costs and accrued interest thereon shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he attains majority. Appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 are permitted to withdraw their entire amount with proportionate costs and interest. Insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned, his share of Rs.12,62,400/- with costs and accrued interest thereon shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he attains majority. Appellant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically on the fixed deposits of her minor son for his educational purpose. 19. MACMA.No.95 of 2020 is allowed as under: (a) The appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (21.01.2020) till the date of deposit. (b) The appellants shall pay court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. (c) The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, less the amount deposited if any, on such deposit appellant Nos.1 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount i.e., Rs.12,62,400/- and Rs.6,31,200/- with proportionate costs and interest. Appellant No.2 share of Rs.12,62,400/- with costs and accrued interest thereon shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he attains majority. Appellant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically on the fixed deposits of her minor son for his educational purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.