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 claimants aggrieved by the award dated 18.09.2019 passed in MVOP.No.767 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. It is stated in the claim petition that on 28.08.2015 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased T. Radhakrishna was crossing the road at Madina Stone Shop opposite to Anuradha Timber Depot, at that time the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-4570 drove the vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed him due to which he sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment, where he died at 23.30 hours. On the complaint, PS Bowenpally has registered a case in Crime No.309/2015 under Section 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the said bus. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 49 years and was hale and healthy, working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. On account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners were deprived of the contribution apart from love and affection and prayed to grant Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. 3. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter stating that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and denied the age, avocation and earning of the deceased and further stated that no accident has taken place as alleged by the claimant and corporation is not liable to pay the amount. 5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TSRTC No. AP11 - Z - 4570 as contended by the petitioners? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? iii) To what relief? 6. The Tribunal has held that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claim petitioners. ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? iii) To what relief? 6. The Tribunal has held that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claim petitioners. The Tribunal has taken the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and added 25% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others , [(2017) 6 SCC 680] and deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier ‘13’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 2 ACJ 1298 and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,85,000/- towards loss of dependency and in total awarded Rs.6,55,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally with interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with costs and interest. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards compensation and failed to accept the income of the deceased as he was working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to award consortium to appellant No.2 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 = 2018 ACJ 2782 SC. The Tribunal failed to award transportation charges, extra nourishment and interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum and relied on the decision in Sagunthala and another vs. Bakkiyam and another , [ 2021 ACJ 1546 ] and the Gazette of India dated 31.05.2010, prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- as the accident has taken place on 28.08.2015 and rightly calculated the amount and no interference is called for. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the quantum and prayed for enhancement of the amount. 11. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the quantum and prayed for enhancement of the amount. 11. It is the case of the appellants/claim petitioners that the deceased Radhakrishna was working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and he was contributing the same to the family. The Tribunal has considered the minimum wages payable to a normal coolie at the time of the accident i.e., 28.08.2015, has taken Rs.4,500/- as earning of the deceased. 12.1 In Sagunthala’s case 4 the Madras High Court has fixed an amount of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income for a coolie for the accident occurred on 08.03.2015. 12.2 Learned counsel for the appellants has filed The Gazette of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification, New Delhi dated 31.05.2010 which shows that as per Sub Section 1(B) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Central Government has fixed the monthly wages as Rs.8,000/- from the date of publication. 13. The income taken by the Tribunal is less during the prevailing situation at the relevant point of time (28.08.2015) and has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. Reasonable amount has to be fixed as monthly income and it would be appropriate that an amount of Rs.8,000/- is fixed as monthly income for the purpose of calculating the compensation will meet the ends of justice. 14. The determination of compensation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly income Rs.8,000/- 3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12) 4. 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses Rs.40,000/- (1,20,000/3) 5. Total Rs.80,000/- (1,20,000 – 40,000) 6. Multiplier ‘13’ Rs.10,40,000/- (80,000 x 13) 7. Transportation charges Rs.5,000/- 8. Damages to clothing Rs.1,000/- 9. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 10. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) 11. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 12. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 13. Total Rs.11,81,000/- 15. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited case (supra). 16. Total compensation awarded is Rs.11,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (08.09.2015) till payment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded along with interest and costs. Appellants are entitled to receive the amount equally. 16. Total compensation awarded is Rs.11,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (08.09.2015) till payment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded along with interest and costs. Appellants are entitled to receive the amount equally. 17. In the result, MACMA.No.82 of 2022 is allowed as under: a) The impugned award dated 18.09.2015 passed in MVOP.No.767 of 2015 stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,55,000/- is enhanced to Rs.11,81,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition (08.09.2015) till payment. c) Appellants to pay court fee on the enhanced amount. d) Appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount equally with proportionate costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally 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.