JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 dated 26.10.2016. 2. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 is preferred by the APSRTC /owner of the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3931 (hereinafter referred as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of one Narra Sivanarayana (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent No.5 is the driver of the crime bus. 4. X.Objections No.6 of 2017 is preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 02.06.2014 early hours, while the deceased along with one Ganji Purnaiah proceeding on his motorcycle, when the deceased turning the said motorcycle towards Bharat Petrol Bunk to fill the petrol on Addanki-Ongole road, the crime bus driven by the 3 rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained multiple injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. ii). The deceased was aged about 45 years, doing business and earned Rs.3,00,000/- per year. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner and driver of the said crime bus. 7. The respondent No.1/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not 3rd respondent driver of the crime bus; that the non- joinder of necessary parties that is insurer of the motorcycle is fatal to the case of the claimants; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased Narra Sivanarayana, died in a road accident which took place on 02.06.2014 at 06.30 a.m., near Ram Nagar, Addanki, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3931 by its driver, if so, whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle? 2.Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3.Whetehr the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? and 4.To what relief?” 9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the 1 st respondent/driver was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were exhibited. 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3 rd respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,10,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 11. It is against the said order; the appeal as well X.objections are preferred by the APSRTC and claimants respectively. 12. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 and Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in X.Objections No.6 of 2017. 13. Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not driver of the crime bus; that the non-joinder of insurance company of said motorcycle is fatal to the case of the claimants; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the insurer. 14. 14. On the other hand, Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in X.Objections No.6 of 2017 submits that as per the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5, the accident occurred due to the negligence of 3rd respondent only; that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3 rd income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses instead of the 1/4 th of the income; that the claimants are also entitled for compensation towards consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection, but the Tribunal did not consider the same; that the Tribunal erroneously taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position and prays to consider the X. objections filed by them. 15. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling by the time of incident? 3. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 4. To what relief? 16. POINT No.1 On this point, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime bus as well motorcycle of the deceased. 17. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent in driving the crime bus, the claimants got examined P.W.2. He categorically testified that on 02.06.2014, when he went to Bharat Petrol Bunk to fill the petrol to his vehicle, the deceased and another came from Addanki and turned towards petrol bunk, at that time the crime bus coming from Hyderabad dashed the motorcycle of the deceased and dragged the said motorcycle for some distance, resulted the deceased sustained severe injuries. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 18. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.5 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3rd respondent. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 18. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.5 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3rd respondent. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3 rd respondent. 19. Even R.W.1, who is driver of the crime bus, admitted that during cross examination that he was kept under suspension and removed from the service after the incident by conducting departmental enquiry. He also admitted that in the accident two persons had died including deceased. Furthermore, there must be cogent evidence to prove the contributory negligence, which is absent in the present case. 20. Having regard to the above it is the clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3 rd respondent, which requires no interference and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 21. POINT NO.2 It is also the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the non-joinder of insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased is fatal to the case of the claimants. 22. In view of the discussion made in point No.1, it is categorical that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 3rd respondent and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thereby, there is no requirement for the claimants to made the insurer of the said motorcycle as party to the proceedings in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited , [ (2015) 9 SCC 273 ] , wherein it was categorically observed that “The owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.” 23. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.” 23. Thereby, the contention of the appellant that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has no legs to stand. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 24. POINT NO.3 Coming to the just compensation, as per the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3, the deceased did business in iron and steel under the name and style of Sri Padmavathi Steel Traders, Addanki up to 31.08.2010 and then handed over the same to his brother-in- law. Thereby, it cannot be considered as occupation of the deceased. Even they claimed that the deceased earned Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, the Tribunal after rightly considering the Exs.A.12 to A.18 Pattadhar passbooks, Title Deeds and registered Sale Deeds standings in the name of deceased, taken monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.12,500/-, which comes to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. 25. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 26. As per the Pranay Sethi case ( referred supra ), in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years….. (emphasis supplied) 27. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 45 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.1,87,500/-(Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.37,500/-). 28. In the case on hand, there are four claimants depending on the deceased, however, the 4 th claimant, who is mother of the deceased died, thereby, when there are only three surviving claimants depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 rd from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.1,25,000/-. 29. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr, [2017 (3) SCC 315], at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as ’principle of multiplier’, has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168 , Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. (emphasis supplied) 30. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years is 14 . The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.17,50,000/- (Rs.1,25,000/- x 14). 31. CONVENTIONAL HEADS :- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ], Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Other, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors., [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683] and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants, being Rs.1,45,200/- for loss of spousal and parental consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). 32. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.1,50,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.37,500/-) Rs.1,87,500/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.1,25,000/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 14. Rs.1,50,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.37,500/-) Rs.1,87,500/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.1,25,000/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 14. (Rs.1,25,000/- x 14) Rs.17,50,000/- 5 Spousal and Filial consortium (wife and two children) Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- X 3) 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.19,31,500/- 33. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,10,000/- to Rs.19,31,500/- . It is needless to say that the compensation as claimed on the remaining heads is not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 34. POINT No.3 In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. As such, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is liable for dismissal and the cross objections preferred by the claimants is liable to be considered. 35. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2159 of 2017 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. In the result, the cross objections No.6 of 2017 is allowed, with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,10,000/- to Rs.19,31,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3/owner and owner of the crime bus. The respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant No.1/wife is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards her share and she permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to receive the remaining compensation amount equally and they are also permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.