JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the MV Act’) by the appellant challenging the Award dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.611 of 2007. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as claim petitioners and respondent. 3. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons, claimant No.4 is the father died during pending O.P., and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased Boki Venkataiah. 4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 12.08.2007 Boki Venkataiah went to Ramakonda Holy place along with one Bhagwanthu, after visiting the said Holy place they were returning back to their village on foot meanwhile at about 10.15 hours Boki Venkataiah observed the arrival of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z- 9858, tried to stop by standing aside the road at KM stone No.20, which was coming from Koilkonda to Mahabubnagar. The driver of the vehicle drove it in rash and negligent manner, dashed Boki Venkataiah, the rear portion of the bus hit him, as a result he fell down underneath the rear wheels of the bus and died on the spot. The deceased Boki Venkataiah was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing coolie work and he was also having agricultural lands at his native place, contributing the income for the maintenance of his family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners were put to mental agony and lost their earning member of the family, in total they have claimed compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under different heads. 5. Respondent – Corporation has filed its counter and contended that as per the information given by the driver of the bus, the deceased all of sudden tried to cross the road without observing the bus and the bus driver tried to avoid the accident, the negligence was on the part of the deceased only and disputed the age and income of the deceased, in any event the compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive. 6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. 6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 12-08-2007 at about 11 am., on Koilkonda – Mahabubnagar road near KM Stone No.20 was due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9858, by its driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased-B.Venkataiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. Claimant No.1 is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No evidence is let on behalf of the respondents. 8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties has determined the compensation and awarded Rs.3,82,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly income Rs.3,000/- 2. 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.2,000/-(3,000- 1,000) (3,000 x 1/3=1,000) 3. Annual income Rs.24,000/- (2,000 x 12) 4. Multiplier ‘15’ Rs.3,60,000/- (15 x 24,000) 5. Loss of companionship Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- 8. Total Rs.3,82,000/- 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10- Z-9858. PW2 is not an eye witness to the accident, mere presence of the witness cannot be considered as an eye witness. The Tribunal has purely granted the compensation on guess work and erred in applying the multiplier by taking the age of the deceased as 40 years and awarded Rs.3,82,000/- and prayed to set aside the award dated 16.03.2012. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and the compensation has to be enhanced adequately by adding future prospects, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate and the Tribunal has not taken the monthly income of the deceased in proper prospective and prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity and is liable to be set aside? 2. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity and is liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, if so, requires any modification? POINT NOs. 1 and 2: 13. Ex.A1/complaint is lodged by C.Narsi Reddy, village assistant of Parapalli village on 12.08.2007. Basing on the said complaint PS Koilkonda has registered a case in FIR No.53/2007 on the same day under Section 304(A) of IPC against P.Narasimha Reddy, driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9858. As per the claim petition the deceased Boki Venkataiah along with one Bhagwanthu (PW2) visited Ramakonda Holy place. Bhagwanthu is examined as PW2, his evidence is that Boki Venkataiah was hale and healthy and after visiting the Holy place they were returning back to their village on foot. The deceased raised his hand by giving signal to stop the bus by standing by the side of the road at KM 20 stone. The driver of the bus was not intending to stop the vehicle, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed Boki Venkataiah on which left rear side edge hit him and fell on the ground, immediately he was ran over by the bus wheels. In his cross examination he has stated that he was at a distance of 10 feets behind the deceased, he was attending the nature calls at that time and he did not observe the bus hitting the deceased. PW2 denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning and that he was not getting any income. PW2 was re- examined by the counsel for the claimants wherein he deposed that after the bus hit the deceased, on observing the same he rushed to the place within few seconds. PW2 denied the suggestion that he did not observe the incident and he is giving false evidence. 14. Ex.A4 is the charge sheet filed by PS Koilkonda against the driver of the bus, wherein PW2 was shown as an eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal has rightly taken the evidence of PW2 into consideration and came to a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A4 is the charge sheet filed by PS Koilkonda against the driver of the bus, wherein PW2 was shown as an eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal has rightly taken the evidence of PW2 into consideration and came to a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. It cannot be said that PW2 is not an eye-witness to the incident. The Tribunal has rightly arrived that the accident has taken place due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9858. 15. It is the evidence of PW1 that her husband is a coolie by profession and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, was also having agricultural lands at his native place and he was contributing the entire income to the family. The Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and in total arrived at an amount of Rs.3,82,000/- as stated supra at paragraph No.8 (Table). 16. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence in respect of the income of the deceased is concerned. Accident has taken place on 12.08.2007 and this Court is of the view that as a coolie the deceased earnings would be Rs.5,000/- per month. The age of the deceased is taken as 40 years as per Ex.A3 (PME Report), Ex.A4 (Charge sheet), and the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. As the claimants are 5 in number 1/4th is taken towards personal expenses of the deceased. 17. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , [(2017) 6 SCC 680] has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation in case of death i.e., Future prospects and Conventional heads. The relevant extract of the Judgment is re-produced herein below: 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.8. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 18. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , the Supreme Court has explained the meaning and scope of the word consortium which is re-produced herein below. 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi1 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal Parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.19. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, though the claimants have not filed any appeal, it is the duty of the Courts to award just compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record, therefore, less valuation if any made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 19. Though the claimants have not filed any appeal, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation basing on the evidence produced on record, therefore, less valuation if any made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award enhanced compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 19. Though the claimants have not filed any appeal, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation basing on the evidence produced on record, therefore, less valuation if any made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award enhanced compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 20.1 In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., (supra) the determination of compensation is as under: Sl. No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly income Rs.5,000/- 2. Add 25% future prospects Rs.6,250/- ((25% of 5,000)=1,250) + 5,000 3. Annual income Rs.75,000/- (6,250 x 12) 4. 1/4th deductions towards personal expenses Rs.18,750/- (75,000 x 1/4) 5. Total Rs.56,250/- (75,000 - 18,750) 6. Multiplier ‘15’ Rs.8,43,750/- (56,250 x 15) 7. Loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) 8. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) 9. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 10. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 11. Total Rs.12,33,750/- 20.2 Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683] 21. Total compensation awarded is Rs.12,33,750/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (24.10.2007) till payment with costs. 22. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled 30% each from the awarded amount i.e., Rs.12,33,750 x 30% = 3,70,125/- each. Respondent No.5/claimant No.5 is entitled for 10% of the awarded amount i.e., Rs.12,33,750 x 10% = 1,23,375/- with costs and interest. Respondent Nos.2 and 3/claimant Nos.2 and 3 being minors, their share amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority along with costs and interest. Respondent No.1/claimant No.1 being the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3/claimant Nos.2 and 3, she is permitted to withdraw the interest from their shares from time to time for the welfare of her children. Respondent Nos.1 and 5/claimant Nos.1 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their entire amount with costs and accrued interest thereon. Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 23. In the result, MACMA.No.652 of 2022 is dismissed: a) The impugned award dated 16.03.2012 passed in MVOP.No.611 of 2007 stands modified. Respondent Nos.1 and 5/claimant Nos.1 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their entire amount with costs and accrued interest thereon. Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 23. In the result, MACMA.No.652 of 2022 is dismissed: a) The impugned award dated 16.03.2012 passed in MVOP.No.611 of 2007 stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,82,000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,33,750/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition (24.10.2007) till payment. c) Claimants to pay court fee on the enhanced amount. d) Claimant Nos.1 and 5 are entitled to withdraw Rs.3,70,125/- and Rs.1,23,375/- with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) The share amounts of claimant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Rs.3,70,125/- each with costs and interest thereon shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. Claimant No.1, being the mother of claimant Nos.2 and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest part for the welfare of the children. f) The appellant-corporation is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.