JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the RTC, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1306 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court 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 claimants before the Tribunal is that on 17.01.2016, the deceased along with another person proceeding from Godal to Kothakuntapally on CT 100 bearing No.AP-09 AN- 1627 and when they reached Lingala X Roads, one TSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11Z-3772 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bike due to which the deceased received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the family members of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Respondents filed counter by denying all material averments in the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age and income of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the motor bike rider and there is no negligence of the driver of RTC bus. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner R.Bandhaiah, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus No.AP-11Z-7380 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief ? 6. At the time of trial, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the RTC no evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.24,64,200/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 30.10.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC. 8. Heard Sri. R. Anurag, learned standing counsel for TSRTC and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. 9. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.24,64,200/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 30.10.2019, the present appeal is filed by the RTC. 8. Heard Sri. R. Anurag, learned standing counsel for TSRTC and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amounts under various heads and that while the claim of the claimants is to an extent of Rs.8,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.26,64,200/- towards compensation which is highly excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the negligence on part of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligence of the driver of RTC bus. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in making 1/5 th deduction instead of making 50% deduction towards income of the deceased as he was bachelor at the time of accident. Thus he prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation even if it is more than that claimed by the claimants and that the Tribunal passed its order on a sound reasoning and thus there is no need to interfere with the same and requested to confirm the order of the Tribunal. 11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike in the occurrence of accident? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1: a) P.W.1 who is the mother of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident. A perusal of the Ex.A.4/charge sheet reveals that it is filed against the driver of the RTC Bus. It further reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. P.W.2 is one S. Bala Swamy who is listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. A perusal of the Ex.A.4/charge sheet reveals that it is filed against the driver of the RTC Bus. It further reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. P.W.2 is one S. Bala Swamy who is listed as eye witness in the charge sheet. He stated during his evidence that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No. AP-11Z-3772 and further submitted that he witnessed the accident from 20 to 25 feet. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.4-charge sheet clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and that there is no negligence on part of the deceased in riding the motor bike. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: b) It is asserted by the claimants that the deceased was aged around 21 years at the time of accident and that he was a private employee and earning Rs.15,000/- per month but no proof is filed to that effect. A perusal of the postmortem report under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 21 years. Claimants have also filed Ex.A.6/SSC Memorandum of Marks which also discloses his age as 21 years. Ex.A.8/bonafide certificate issued by Principal, Sum Government Degree College, Kondanagula it reveals that deceased was a student of the Sum Government College, Kondanagula during the academic year 2012-15 wherein he was pursuing B.Sc. A perusal of the Exs.A.6 and A.7 reveals that the deceased has passed 10 th class in B.2 grade and intermediate in C grade and thus it is clear that the deceased is an average student in his studies. Though, they filed bonafide certificate under Ex.A.8, it reveals that he pursued the degree between 2012-15 but marks memo of B.Sc was not filed. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that he has completed B.Sc. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards monthly income of the deceased. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. In the present case, since the deceased pursued his studies up to B.Sc, on a reasonable hypothesis, the income may be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month. c) 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 21 years, adding 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000/-x 40/100 = 4,800/-) per month, which comes to Rs.16,800/- x 12 = Rs.2,01,600/- per annum. d) The deceased was a bachelor and hence 50% deduction has to be made but the Tribunal has made 1/5 th deduction towards personal expenses. Thus deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses, would come up to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.2,01,600/- (-) Rs.1,00,800/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 21 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 21 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘18’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.1,00,800/- X 18 = Rs.18,14,400/-). 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.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-). 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.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-). Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. Thus the claimants are entitled to Rs.19,47,500/- Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.24,64,200/- to that of Rs.19,47,500/- which would be justified in the present case. h) Now the question is whether this Court can reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal? In Ranjan Prakash and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Others , [ (2011) 14 SCC 639 ] , the Apex Court had held as under :- “Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” i) In Sharanamma and Ors. Vs. M.D., Divisional Centre, Nekrte, (2013) 11 SCC 517 , the Apex Court held that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal unless and until, it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake has taken place. In the present case, there is glaring discrepancy with regard to the assessment of compensation under loss of dependancy, the said discrepancy occurred as the Tribunal misconstrued the deduction to be 1/5 th while it has to be 50%, since the deceased is a bachelor. In the present case, there is glaring discrepancy with regard to the assessment of compensation under loss of dependancy, the said discrepancy occurred as the Tribunal misconstrued the deduction to be 1/5 th while it has to be 50%, since the deceased is a bachelor. j) Hence, in the light of the above cited decisions of the Apex Court and in view of the discussion held supra, this Court opines that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess and thus needs to be set aside. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced to the said extent of Rs.19,47,500/-, that would meet the ends of justice. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the RTC is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 30.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1306 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court at Hyderabad, reducing the compensation from Rs.24,64,200/- to Rs. 19,47,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Appellants-RTC 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 claimants 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.