JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad (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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 06.01.2014, deceased A.Venkata Ramarao started from Sarathi Studios and was going towards Ameerpet by walk. At about 15.30 hours, auto bearing No.AP-09-TB-1544 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous head injury and serious injuries all over the body and was shifted Axon Hospital, S.R.Nagar for treatment. Deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 49 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Manager in Classic Construction. They made a claim of Rs.25,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the issuance of policy and validity as on the date of the alleged accident and further denied all the averments in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. 6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased A.Venkata Ramarao S/o Late AVL Narasimha Rao died on 06.01.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP- 09-TB-1544? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,30,000/-. 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, petitioner No.1 herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. 9. Heard the submission of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has awarded meager compensation to the petitioners. He further argued that the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is very low, that the deceased was working as a Manager in a construction company and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He further submitted that the consortium needs to be awarded to all the petitioners which the Tribunal has not awarded and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that there is no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal and also contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any other amounts and further prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is their case that the deceased was aged 49 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as Manager in a construction company. P.W.1 asserted the same in her evidence but no other evidence was placed on record with regard to the earnings of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maheshwari and Ors. v. Ramachandran and Ors.” , [2023 (ACJ) 1210] . P.W.1 asserted the same in her evidence but no other evidence was placed on record with regard to the earnings of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maheshwari and Ors. v. Ramachandran and Ors.” , [2023 (ACJ) 1210] . In the said case, the deceased used to run a vegetable shop and had also been selling beverages and he was 44 years old, when he, unfortunately, met with an accident in the year 2015, the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.8,000/- per month but the Hon’ble Apex Court having regard to the nature of business and the fact that he was supporting a family of four members, has held that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. b) In the present case, the deceased was supporting his family of three members and he is stated to have been working as Manager in a construction company, aged 44 years but in Ex.A.2/ certified copy of inquest report, it is mentioned that the deceased was doing real estate. Considering the said facts and on a reasonable hypothesis an amount of Rs.8,000/- can be safely taken as monthly income of the deceased. c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , [AIR 2017 SCC 5157] , 25% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 44 years as per P.M.E report, adding 25% towards future prospects would give Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/-x 25/100 = 2,000/-) per month, which comes to Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3 rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- (-) Rs.40,000/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 44 years. 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 44 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘14’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.11,20,000/- (Rs.80,000/- X 14 = Rs.11,20,000/-). Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.11,20,000/- (Rs.80,000/- X 14 = Rs.11,20,000/-). f) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% for 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 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.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- X 3 = Rs.1,45,200/-). Claimants are also entitled for compensation under ‘conventional heads’ as laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi , i.e., Rs.18,150/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral charges. Hence, they are entitled to Rs.36,300/- under the ‘Conventional heads’. Therefore, claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,20,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/- TOTAL Rs. 13,01,500/- h) Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.9,30,000/- to that of Rs.13,01,500/- which would be justified in the present case. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified and accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.9,30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.13,01,500/-. 15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the petitioners is partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,30,000/- to Rs.13,01,500/- 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. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.2 is 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 petitioners 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.