JUDGMET: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2018 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial (for short “the trial Court”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 04.10.2016 the deceased was proceeding to Luxettipet on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-01ED-2573 and when he reached near Itikyaal bus stop, at around 7:30 p.m., the Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-07ED-8771 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, sustained head injury and died on the spot. The petitioner sought Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 and 3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle has submitted that since his vehicle is insured with the respondent No.3, he is not liable to pay compensation if any, and that it is only respondent No.3 that would be liable. The Respondent No.3 has contended that the driver of the Bollero Vehicle does not have a valid driving license and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, 6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether Baddapuri Sridhar died in the accident that occurred on 04.10.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., near Itikyaal Village? 2) Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing No.TS07ED-8771? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accidental death of Baddapuri Sridhar, if so how much? And against which of the respondents? 4) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,12,710/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,12,710/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the compensation and that the Tribunal has arrived at exorbitant amount in computing the loss of dependency and further made errors in calculation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest @12% which is too excessive and has prayed to reduce the interest to 7.5%. He therefore, submitted that by applying the guidelines of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 just compensation may be awarded to the deceased by setting aside the order and decree of the Tribunal. 11. The learned respondent counsel has submitted that the arithmetical errors may be corrected, but the interest need not be reduced. 12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether there are any errors in computation of compensation by the Tribunal ? 2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal has assessed that the deceased was working as Operator in Electricity Sub Station and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.13,445/- per month. The salary is not in dispute as he is a Government Employeee and his Salary Certificate is also filed under Ex.A7. b) Further the date of birth of the deceased is revealed as 11.11.1982 as per the SSC Certificate. 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 34 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 13,444 + 5,377 would give Rs.18,821/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,821 x 12 = Rs.2,25,859/- per annum. Pranay Sethi & Others , AIR 2017 SCC 5157 , 40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 34 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 13,444 + 5,377 would give Rs.18,821/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,821 x 12 = Rs.2,25,859/- per annum. c) The number of claimants herein are five and therefore, 1/4 th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,69,394/- (Rs.2,25,859/- (-) Rs.56,464/-). d) 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 34 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘16. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.27,10,310/-. e) 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. f) 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.2,42,000/- 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. g) It is noticed that the Tribunal has taken the Salary of the deceased rightly from the salary certificate, but has committed an arithmetical error in computing the compensation. Therefore, by rectifying it, the compensation is arrived at Rs.29,88,610/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.32,12,710/-. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly 14. Point No.2: a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal needs to be modified, rectifying the calculation of compensation. Thus arriving at a just compensation of Rs.29,88,610/-. b) The Tribunal has granted interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly 14. Point No.2: a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the Order and Decree of the Tribunal needs to be modified, rectifying the calculation of compensation. Thus arriving at a just compensation of Rs.29,88,610/-. b) The Tribunal has granted interest @ 12% per annum. It is the contention of the appellant counsel that it is exorbitant. c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another , [2022 SCC Online TS 606] ; the Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) Another Bench in Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Others, 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 ; has also granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) Wherein in National Insurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others, 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 ; has also granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. f) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiah , [2024 SCC Online TS 915] ; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. g) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi , [2024 SCC Online TS 2050] ; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. h) Another Division Bench of this High Court in United Insurance Company Vs. K. Raghupathi Reddy, 2023 SCC Online TS 650 ; has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. i) Therefore, it is noticed that consistently this High Court has been granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in this appeals. Hence, in the present case, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to that of 7.5% per annum. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. i) Therefore, it is noticed that consistently this High Court has been granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in this appeals. Hence, in the present case, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to that of 7.5% per annum. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3:- In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 12.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial, rectifying the calculation of compensation, thus arriving at Rs.29,88,610/- which 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.