JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 19.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.68 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (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 was that on 14.11.2014 the deceased was returning from his agricultural fields by walk and when he reached near Guntur Camp of Paidimal Village at about 10:30 p.m., one Tractor bearing No.TS-16-ATR- 7792 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the deceased from behind and the tractor turned turtle, fell on the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving license and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.TS-6-A-TR-7792 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 got examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.16,82,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence. He further argued that the Tribunal has committed error in quantification of compensation and that it has come to a wrong conclusion with regard to the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.4,500/- as notional income of the deceased, but the Tribunal has taken the income to be Rs.8,000/- per month which is very excessive. He further argued that the future prospects also cannot be taken into consideration as there is no fixed income to the deceased and the Tribunal ought to have awarded only 6% interest instead of 7.5%. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. He further submitted that with regard to consortium, the Tribunal failed to consider the legal principles and therefore, prayed to enhance the said amount. 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) The case of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted huge compensation by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/- per month in the absence of any proof filed by them. It is asserted by PW1 that her husband used to earn around Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture. No proof is filed in this regard. The deceased was aged about 35 years as per the PME report under Ex.A4. He was running a family of six persons i.e., his wife, three children and parents. It is asserted by PW1 that he was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable. b) The Tribunal has considered the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. It is asserted by PW1 that he was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/- which appears to be just and reasonable. b) The Tribunal has considered the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , AIR 2017 SC 5157 and has awarded 40% towards future prospects and has also deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenses as the number of dependents are six. It is further observed that the Tribunal has taken the right multiplier as ‘16’ since the deceased was aged ‘35’ years as per the PME. Thus the compensation arrived by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency as Rs.16,12,800/- is well justified. c) To the said amount the loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate have to be awarded. d) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years. e) 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 not only the spouse but 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.2,90,400/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. f) The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company and there is no appeal or Cross Objection filed by the claimants. Now the question is whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of any cross appeal by the claimants. g) In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service , (2013) 16 SCC 719 the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,300/- along with interesttowards compensation. g) In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service , (2013) 16 SCC 719 the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,300/- along with interesttowards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the respondents has filed an Appeal before the High Court and the High Court has partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,800/-. Being aggrieved by this Judgment, the legal representatives of the deceased filed Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has awarded the compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony. It has further held that without a claimants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. h) Similarly, in Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors . (2021) 166 SCC 467 , the claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.40,17,602/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal before the High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.49,15,376/-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company claiming reduction of compensation was dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, it has held that in the matters of Motor Accident Claims, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the claimants. By holding so, the Apex Court has modified the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. i) In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Vs. By holding so, the Apex Court has modified the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. i) In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Vs. Dusari Pramila and Another , MACMA No. 88 of 2014 , the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before this High Court which has held that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction of this Court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.15,82,600/- with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. j) Applying the above cited decisions, compensation is enhanced in the present case, though the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objections. k) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.16,12,800/- 2. Compensation towards loss of consortium 2,90,400/- 3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.19,39,500/- l) It is held that the enhancement of compensation from Rs.16,82,800/- to that of Rs.19,39,500/- 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. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.16,82,800/- is enhanced to Rs.19,39,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%. This Court also has been consistently awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% in all cases. Hence, the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is disposed of upholding the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.TS-6-A-TR-7792. Further, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.16,82,800/- to Rs.19,39,500/- 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. Further, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.16,82,800/- to Rs.19,39,500/- 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. The 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 appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.