JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 was that on 05.05.2016 at about 14:45 hours while the deceased-Sanjeeva Reddy was proceeding from Vijaynagar Colony, Uppal to Chilkanagar on his motor bike bearing No.AP-29AF-4895, when he reached Shiva Sai Hospital and while he was trying to park the bike before the said hospital, rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TSAP-05W-4888, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed him due to which the said Sanjeeva Reddy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Aditya Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on the next day at 08:29 a.m., The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The respondent No.1, 3 and 4 remained ex-parte. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the manner in which the accident has occurred. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that there is no negligence of the rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TSAP-05W-4888. Thus, they denied their liability to pay their compensation. 5. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Ganta Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o9 Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum? 3) To what relief? 6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 and X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 8. Heard the submission of Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. 9. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 8. Heard the submission of Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the law and weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation without any proof of income established by the petitioners. He further argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the petition against the owner of the vehicle and thus, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. But However, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability against the Insurance Company even after dismissing the case against the owner. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is against law and therefore, prayed to set aside the same. He further, argued that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier to be ‘13’ and that the deceased was aged ‘56’ years. He further has argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and thus, prayed to uphold the same. She further argued that the deceased have to be compensated by taking into consideration their pathetic condition and that even in the absence of driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle, pay and recovery can be ordered and that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. She therefore, prayed to uphold the same. 11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether there was no driving license to the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454. If so, whether the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 12. 11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether there was no driving license to the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454. If so, whether the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-8EC-4454 was not holding a valid driving license and though the vehicle is insured with them, their company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, it is their contention that the Tribunal has dismissed the case against the respondent No.1 herein. Once the owner is absolved from liability, this Insurance Company do not have any liability. b) It is their case that as per the R.C, the owner is respondent No.1, while respondent No.3-Gandikonta Ravi was riding the bike at the relevant point of time when the accident has occurred. The said person-respondent No.3-Gandikota Ravi was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. Another contention is that the owner of the motor bike i.e., respondent No.1/Vinay Kumar was absolved from his liability by the Tribunal and therefore, the question of indemnifying the said respondent No.1 does not arise. c) In support of their contention, the respondents have filed Ex.B1 to B5 and got examined RW1. The evidence of RW1 and a perusal of these exhibits would reveal that on intimation about the accident, they have served notice on the owner and the rider of the motor bike, but inspite of receipt of the said notices, they failed to produce the driving license of Gandikota Ravi, who was riding the motor bike at the relevant point of time. The owner has failed to furnish the particulars. In his cross examination he admitted that at the time of accident, the policy was in force. d) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A3 reveals that the charge sheet is filed against Gandikota Ravi who is arrayed as accused No.1, who was riding the motor bike and it is also filed against one Shiva who is the owner of Yamaha Bike showroom. d) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A3 reveals that the charge sheet is filed against Gandikota Ravi who is arrayed as accused No.1, who was riding the motor bike and it is also filed against one Shiva who is the owner of Yamaha Bike showroom. The contents of the charge sheet reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Gandikota Ravi who was riding the bike bearing No. TS-8EC-4454. The accused No.2- Shiva is the owner of the Ashoka Motors which runs a bike servicing centre and accused No.1 is the Assistant Mechanic of the accused No.2. e) LW6/ Vinay Kumar who is the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent No.1 in the present case has handed over his bike for servicing on 05.05.2016 and that the accused No.2 has allowed the accused No.1 to go on the said bike in an unauthorized manner. Thus, while accused No.1 was proceeding on the said bike, the accident has occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that there was no negligence on part of the respondent No.1 who has given his bike for servicing at the relevant point of time. It is the owner of the Yamaha showroom who entrusted the bike in an unauthorized manner to the rider and thus, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the said respondents. Since, the respondent No.3 did not have valid driving license, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the compensation and then recover from the respondent No.4 i.e., the owner of Yamaha Showroom. f) The point to be considered in this regard is that, though there was no negligence on part of the owner, it is the rider/respondent No.3 of the bike, who was negligent and since, the accident occurred with the said vehicle, the owner/respondent No.1 as well as the insurer/respondent No.2 would be made liable to pay compensation and respondent No.4/the owner of bike service centre was negligent in handing over the said bike in an unauthorized manner to the rider. Respondent No.4 was negligent in handing over the bike to respondent No.3 in an un-authorized manner. Therefore, all the respondents would be held liable for paying the compensation jointly and severally. Respondent No.4 was negligent in handing over the bike to respondent No.3 in an un-authorized manner. Therefore, all the respondents would be held liable for paying the compensation jointly and severally. However, since it is elicited from the evidence of RW1 coupled with Exs.B1 to B5 that the notices were served on the owner and rider of the bike, but still they could not produce the valid driving license. Therefore, since the rider of the bike did not possess a valid driving license, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation and recover from the other respondents. 13. Point No.2: a) The grievance of the claimants is only that the Tribunal has not considered the addition of income towards future prospects. As per the law laid down by National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 by the Apex Court, addition has to be made with regard to future prospects, while computing the compensation. In the present case the deceased is stated to have been Real Estate Agent and the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. b) A perusal of the driving license reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 07.07.1959. Thus the appellant counsel has contended that the deceased was aged around ‘57’ years and thus the multiplier ‘9’ has to be applied in this case. While the respondent counsel has contended that as per Post Mortem Examination Report, it is only ‘53’ years, so the same has been taken by the Tribunal and that may be upheld. When date of birth is revealed by driving license, the same has to be taken into account and considering the said age of the deceased, multiplier ‘9’ is applicable in this case. c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 10% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 53 years, adding 10% towards future prospects i.e., Rs.9000+Rs.900 would give Rs.9,900/- per month, which comes to Rs.9,900/- x 12 = Rs.1,18,800/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4 th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.89,100/- (Rs.1,18,000/- (-) Rs.29,700/-). d) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4 th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.89,100/- (Rs.1,18,000/- (-) Rs.29,700/-). e) 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 57 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘9’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,01,900/-. 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.1,93,600/- 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.11,61,799/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,41,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the liability of respondents and the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,61,799/- from that of Rs.11,41,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal and the respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1, 3 and 4. 14. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,61,799/- from that of Rs.11,41,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal and the respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1, 3 and 4. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 04.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,41,000/- to 11,61,799/- 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. The appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation and then recover the same from other respondents. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the 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. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.