JUDGMENT: A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, directed against the Order and Decree dated 04.04.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.379 of 2014 by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short “MACT”). 2. Claimants before the learned MACT, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted at Rs.6,09,000/- with interest @6% p.a., as against the claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, filed the present appeal, questioning the just and adequate nature of compensation awarded. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the APSRTC, owner of the bus, involved in the accident pleaded by the claimants. 3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimants and respondents. Case of the claimants, in brief: 5. [i] One Venkata Kanaka Durga Appa Rao, [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimant No.2, son of claimant No.3 and 4. On the fateful day i.e., on 20.11.2012, at about 07.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his cycle to bring milk, reached near Tirumalla Satyanarayana’s Coffee hotel, nearby the Nelaturu bridge, within the limits of Angara Police Station, East Godavari District, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1966, [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’] being driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle and ran over the deceased causing instantaneous death. The deceased was aged about 23 years. Claimant No.1 was carrying claimant No.2 by the time of accident and it was 7months pregnancy. [ii] The deceased was the sole bread winner for the family and earning Rs.8000/- per month by attending painting works, due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost valuable support and their life become dark. [iii] The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending Vehicle and remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Case of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC: 6. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants strictly. Negligence of the deceased in riding the bicycle cannot be ignored. Quantum of compensation granted is excessive. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants strictly. Negligence of the deceased in riding the bicycle cannot be ignored. Quantum of compensation granted is excessive. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of st the 1 respondent – driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1966? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation and if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 8. Evidence before the learned MACT:- [I] Documentary Evidence For the Claimants For the Respondents Exhibit No. Description Exhibit Description No. Ex.A1 Certified Copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.98 of 2012 of Anagara Police Station -Nil- Ex.A2 Certified Copy of Inquest report Ex.A3 Certified Copy of Post Mortem report Ex.A4 Certified Copy of Charge Sheet Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Sala Bramaramba@Bramarambhica (wife of deceased) R.W.1 Kajuluri Ammanna [driver of the Offending Vehicle] PW.2 Thurumalla Satyanarayana (eye-witness) Findings of the learned MACT: 9. [i] With the evidence of claimant as PW.1 and eye witness as PW.2 and the recitals of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, are fit to be accepted. Evidence of RW.1 is fit to be ignored, as there is sufficient evidence to prove the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. [ii] While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT taken the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 and adopted ‘17’ multiplier by rejecting the contentions of the claimants about the age of the deceased as ‘23’, referring to age of the father of the deceased etc., and taken the income at Rs.3000/- per month, found loss of dependency at Rs.4,59,000/- awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium for the 1st claimant and Rs.25,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenditure and loss of love and affection to the claimant No.2 and in all granted compensation of Rs.6,09,000/-, while apportioning Rs.2,49,000/- to the 1st claimant, Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd claimant and Rs.80,000/- each to the claimants No.3 and 4, parents of the deceased. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants/appellants: 10. [i] Learned MACT erred in adopting the age and income of the deceased. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants/appellants: 10. [i] Learned MACT erred in adopting the age and income of the deceased. [ii] Quantum of compensation awarded is very low. [iii] Learned MACT ignored that the deceased is a skilled worker and erred taking income @Rs.100/- per day which is very meager. [iv] Learned MACT failed in awarding compensation under the heads of loss of estate etc. For the Respondent-APSRTC: [v] Learned MACT ought to have considered the negligence on the part of the deceased and apportioned contribution of negligence. Age, occupation and income of the deceased are not properly appreciated by the learned MACT and the quantum of compensation granted is on high side and there are no grounds to interfere. 11. Perused the record. 12. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 20.11.2012 has occurred owing to the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle ? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? and whether the compensation of Rs.6,09,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence available on record? 3) What is the result of appeal? Point No.1:- Analysis of Evidence:- 14. [i] PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident. His evidence is clear and categorical. Nothing important to discredit his evidence is elicited during the cross-examination, but he has given clear version of the accident and instantaneous death of the deceased due to the bus running over the head of the deceased and his brain matter of the deceased coming out. Cross-examination of PW.2 is as follows: “It is not true to suggest that I did not witness the accident and that there st was no negligence on the part of the 1 respondent driver”. [ii] PW.2, T.Satyanarayana is shown as PW.4 in the list of witnesses in Ex.A4-Charge Sheet. It can be inferred from Ex.A4 that, he has been examined before the Criminal Court as PW.3. What is the result in the judgment in C.C.No.82 of 2013 in which the driver of the offending vehicle faced trial is not st even whispered. [ii] PW.2, T.Satyanarayana is shown as PW.4 in the list of witnesses in Ex.A4-Charge Sheet. It can be inferred from Ex.A4 that, he has been examined before the Criminal Court as PW.3. What is the result in the judgment in C.C.No.82 of 2013 in which the driver of the offending vehicle faced trial is not st even whispered. What is the result of the departmental enquiry if any against 1 respondent, is also in dark. Except asserting that the conductor of the bus gave signal and the vehicle was moved and that on hearing shoutings, the bus was stopped and it was found a person near right side of the tire, nothing more is elicited. The assertion that the deceased was handicapped and trying to cross the road at the time of accident is only a self serving statement of RW.1. [iii] If conductor’s signal is the defence, why conductor of the bus is not examined is not known. In the light of the evidence of PW.2, with the corroboration from Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A4-Charge Sheet, it can be safely concluded that the claimants are able to prove beyond probability that the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus is the cause for the accident. Hence, this point is answered accordingly against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: Precedential Guidance: 15. Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directing adoption of multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. 16. [i] Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017(16) SCC 680 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. [ii] The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. Further in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended; at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years; at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three two years, in Pranay Sethi’s Case [cited 3 supra]. 17. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in MAGMA General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon’ble apex court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. 18. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., 2023 (3) SCC 439 , reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd, 1995 (1) SCC 551 . From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding. 19. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding. 19. In the light of the Precedential Guidance referred above, for considering the entitlement of claimants for compensation, require determination with reference to evidence. Analysis of evidence: 20. First Claimant as PW.1 asserted that the deceased was a painter and was earning Rs.8000/- per month. During the cross-examination of PW.1 except suggesting that the deceased was not earning Rs.8000/- per month, nothing more is elicited. However, the claimants’ side also there is no other evidence corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 as to occupation and income of the deceased. The only option available is to take the income notionally with some reasonable guess work. It is relevant to note that the learned MACT did not add future aspect as directed by Hon’ble Apex Court. 21. Upon considering the socio economic circumstances of the year 2012 and age of the deceased that he must be engaged in some profession and upon considering that no grounds are made out to disbelieve the version of PW.1, as to occupation of the deceased as painter, this Court finds that the income of the deceased can be accepted Rs.6000/- per month inclusive of future prospects. Learned MACT did not award compensation under the head of loss of estate and loss of Consortium to claimants 2 to 4. The compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenditure and loss of consortium to claimant No.1 are not satisfying the scale contemplated in Sarla Verma’s case. Therefore, there is necessity to revamp the quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT, taking aid of the discussion made above. 22. The age of the deceased is fit to be taken at ‘23’ with reference to the Post Mortem report, which is usual practice and procedure. For the age group of 22 to 25, multiplier ‘18’ is applicable. The parameters helpful for quantification of compensation for the reasons stated above are that- 1) Income of the deceased is Rs.6000/- per month. 2) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/4th is Rs.1500/- p.m. 3) Contribution of income of the deceased for claimants at Rs.4,500/- p.m. 4) Annual contribution is Rs.54,000/- 5) Multiplicand is Rs.54,000/- 6) Multiplier applicable is ‘18’. 23. The parameters helpful for quantification of compensation for the reasons stated above are that- 1) Income of the deceased is Rs.6000/- per month. 2) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/4th is Rs.1500/- p.m. 3) Contribution of income of the deceased for claimants at Rs.4,500/- p.m. 4) Annual contribution is Rs.54,000/- 5) Multiplicand is Rs.54,000/- 6) Multiplier applicable is ‘18’. 23. Thus the entitlement of the claimant Nos.1 to 4 under loss of dependency comes to [54,000/- x 18] Rs.9,72,000/-. The claimants are entitled compensation under the head of loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each, loss of spousal consortium to the claimant No.1, loss of parental consortium to the 2nd claimant, loss of filial consortium to the 3rd and 4th claimants. Further, the claimants are entitled funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. 24. In view of the discussion made and in the light of evidence and the legal position stated etc. above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded bythe MACT Fixed by thisCourt (i) Loss of Dependency Rs.4,59,000/- Rs.9,72,000/ (ii) Loss of Consortium Spousal consortium for Claimant No.1:- Parental Consortium for Claimant No.2:- Loss of Filial Consortium: ClaimantsNo.3&4 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- (iii) Loss of Love and Affection Rs.25,000/- - Nil - (iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Transportation Expenses -Nil -Nil- (v) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.6,09.000/- Rs.11,62,000/- 25. In the light of the discussion made and the above findings of this Court, Points No.2 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the compensation granted by the learned MACT require revamp and they are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,62,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a.. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Point Nos.3:- 26. For the aforesaid reasons and conclusions drawn under Points No.1 and 2, and in the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows:- 1) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,62,000/- instead of Rs.6,09,000/-. 2) The interest is enhanced from 6%p.a to 7.5% p.a. 3) The apportionment with proportionate interest to the claimants is as follows: i) 1st claimant is entitled for Rs.4,62,000/- ii) 2nd Claimant is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- iii) Claimants 3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each. 4) Claimants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled their respective share of compensation, on deposit. 4) Claimants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled their respective share of compensation, on deposit. 5) Claimant No.2 is entitled for withdrawal on attaining the majority. 6) Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and shall deposit the compensation within one month. [Save what has already been deposited]. 7) Withdrawal of the compensation by the 2nd claimant shall be subject to attaining of majority and permission by learned MACT, as per law. 8) No costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.