JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 24.07.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 24.11.2017 in the afternoon the deceased-Jorrigala Sai was proceeding to Gundrampally Village from Veiminedu Village on his motor bike for attending flower decoration work and on the way at about 4:00 p.m., when he reached near to Sripathi Lab, in the outskirts of Gundrampally Village, one Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-29-AX-9009 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind, as a result of which the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The parents of the deceased sought compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. They further contended that the car is insured with respondent No.3 and therefore, if at all any liability is fixed on them, the same has to be indemnified by respondent No.3. 5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and also with regard to the occurrence of the accident. It is further contended by the respondent No.3-Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license and therefore, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased himself and that there was no negligence of the car driver. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the deceased-Jorrigala Sai died in the road accident said to have occurred on 24.11.2017 at 04:00 p.m., at the outskirts of Gundrampally Village of Chityal Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-29AX-9009? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? 7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has made an error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and has awarded a very meagre compensation. She further argued that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased and that the deceased used to get engaged in Flower Decoration Works and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month besides pursuing studies. But the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said fact. She further submitted that the Tribunal has attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased, which is not proper in the eye of law. She therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal and prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal saying that it is a well reasoned order. 12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation ? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Sai Kumar in the occurrence of the accident? 3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) The appellants herein are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal and also with regard to the aspect of contributory negligence fixed on the deceased to the extent of 50%. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was an ITI Student and also used to attend Flower Decoration Works and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. To prove the earnings of the deceased, PW2 was examined. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was an ITI Student and also used to attend Flower Decoration Works and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. To prove the earnings of the deceased, PW2 was examined. b) PW2 is also an eye witness to the accident. The evidence of PW2 reveals that he is a villager by name Anuri Srinivas and that the deceased used to do Flower Decoration Works and that the deceased met with an accident while he was going to attend the said decoration works. No suggestion was posed during his cross examination with regard to the avocation of the deceased. The petitioners have further filed Exs.P6 to P8. Ex.P6 is the SSC Memo of the deceased while Ex.P7 is a Bonafide Certificate issued by Aditya Industrial Training Centre showing that he was the student of the said Industrial Training Centre from 2016 to 2018 and that he was undergoing training as an Electrician and Ex.P8 is the trainee mark sheet issued by the Aditya Industrial Training Centre, wherein the petitioner secured 554 marks out of 700 marks which discloses that he was a good student. c) Admittedly he was a student, however, it was stated by the petitioner that he has been working as Flower Decorator, which would not fetch him more than Rs.5,000/- per month on a reasonable hypothesis. As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others,AIR 2017 SCC 5157 , 40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 18 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 5,000+2000 would give Rs.7,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.7,000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/- per annum. d) Since the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident, 50% deduction need to be made to the income of the  deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.42,000/- (84,000 x 50/100). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.P3 reveals the age of the deceased as 18 years. As per the SSC Memo, his date of birth is disclosed as 18.11.1999 and the accident occurred on 24.11.2017. Thus, he was aged ‘18’ years as on the date of the accident. e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.P3 reveals the age of the deceased as 18 years. As per the SSC Memo, his date of birth is disclosed as 18.11.1999 and the accident occurred on 24.11.2017. Thus, he was aged ‘18’ years as on the date of the accident. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] . The deceased being aged 18 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘18. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,56,000/- (42,000 x18). f) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years. g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi ’s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.8,89,100/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,20,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.2 a) The contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident and that he was not possessing valid driving license. b) The evidence of PW2 discloses that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident. With regard to non possessing of driving license, no evidence was adduced. Thus, the said contention of the Insurance Counsel is not proved. Not wearing a helmet is in violation of Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act. However, that did not contribute to the accident in any manner. With regard to non possessing of driving license, no evidence was adduced. Thus, the said contention of the Insurance Counsel is not proved. Not wearing a helmet is in violation of Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act. However, that did not contribute to the accident in any manner. c) Normally when a person falls down without helmet, he may sustain grievous injury and the gravity of the injury may be more, but it cannot be attributed to be a reason for the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the deceased not wearing a helmet cannot be held to be a reason for the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the aspect of contributory negligence cannot be considered in this case. d) A perusal of the charge sheet and FIR would reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of Swift Car. The name of PW2-Anuri Srinivas is mentioned in the FIR as an eye witness. PW2 is shown as LW3/eye witness in the charge sheet. His evidence also reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Swift Car bearing No.AP-29AX-9009. Thus, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the deceased and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. e) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision rendered by this High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Orsu Lurdhaiah and others, 2024 (3) ALD 507 (TS) , wherein a bench of this High Court has held that in case of failure of the rider of the bike to wear helmet at the time of driving, it cannot be held that there is 50% contributory negligence by the deceased. The cited decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the light of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 17. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,89,100/- from that of Rs.3,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 18. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 17. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,89,100/- from that of Rs.3,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 18. POINT NO.4: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 24.07.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,20,000/- to 8,89,100/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.