JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, 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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 31.10.2016 at about 10:30 hours when the deceased was returning home from Cherlapally on motor bike bearing No.AP-20-AN-7547 and when he reached Ganesh Temple kaman, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Cherlapally, the driver of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976 proceeding from HCL to Cherlapally, driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants have sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company opposed the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of Nano Car does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He also contended that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the car driver, but it occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident that occurred on 31.10.2016 at about 10:30 hours near Ganesh Temple Kaman, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and from whom ? 3. To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.17,20,000/- Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.17,20,000/- Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the compensation. He further argued that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased and has failed to award 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged about 36 years. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of compensation and thus prayed to enhance the same. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 may be followed in awarding future prospects. 11.1 Based on the above submission, this Court frames the following points for determination:- 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 12. Point No.1: a) The grievance of the claimants is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is their case that the deceased used to work as a Helper in Sai Teja Papers and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of their claim they got examined PW3 and got marked Ex.A6/Salary Certificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is issued by the Managing Partner of Sai Teja Papers, certifying that the deceased Siyadri Prasad worked as a helper in their godown for the past 13 years till his death in the motor vehicle accident on 31.10.2016 and that he was paid wages of Rs.12,500/- per month (without O.T). b) The evidence of PW3 in chief examination is to the effect that he has issued Ex.A6 and that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,500/- per month as a helper in their godown and that he worked for 13 years till his death. b) The evidence of PW3 in chief examination is to the effect that he has issued Ex.A6 and that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,500/- per month as a helper in their godown and that he worked for 13 years till his death. In his cross examination he admitted that labour laws are applicable to an employee who works for 13 years and that he did not follow the labour laws. Ex.A7 is the Copy of Certificate of registration of Sai Teja Papers. Ex.A8 is the copy of VAT registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax Department. Ex.A9 is the Bank Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers dated 02.07.2018. Ex.A10 is the Attested Copy of Income Tax Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers. Ex.A11 is the Xerox Copies of registers. Ex.A7, A8 and A11 were marked after verification of originals by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners could effectively prove before the Tribunal that Sai Teja Papers was a registered dealer dealing with wholesale waste paper business. c) Ex.A11 is the Attendance Register maintained by Sai Teja Papers and it shows the name of the deceased disclosing that the deceased used to work in their godown. Thus, nothing material could be elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, considering the same, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- per month which appears to be justified. d) 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 36 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 12,500+5000 would give Rs.17,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.17,500/- x 12 = Rs.2,10,000/- per annum. e) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3 rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.2,10,000/- (-) Rs.70,000/-). f) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as ‘36’ 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 Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the deceased being aged ‘36’ years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs.1,40,000 x 15). 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 Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the deceased being aged ‘36’ years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs.1,40,000 x 15). g) 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. h) 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.1,45,200/- 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. i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts:- 1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs. 21,00,000/- 2. Compensation towards loss of consortium to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 Rs. 1,45,200/- 3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- 4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total Rs. 22,81,500/- j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.22,81,500/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,20,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,81,500/- from that of Rs.17,20,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,81,500/- from that of Rs.17,20,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.17,20,000/- to 22,81,500/- 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 respondents are 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. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.