JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2008, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.03.2012, whereby their claim was partly allowed by granting a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal. 2. Claim is arising out of the death of one Tata Srinivasa Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2007. While the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7 W 4568 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed against the motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent manner, which has led to death of deceased on the spot. 3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant Nos.3 is unmarried sister and claimant No.4 is elder brother of the deceased. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. 5. Claim was resisted on the ground of compliance of conditions of policy and excessive nature of compensation by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 6. Learned MACT held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants by referring to the FIR in Crime No.234 of 2007 vide Ex.A1, post- mortem report-Ex.A2, Inquest Report-Ex.A3 and the oral evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, who found the offending vehicle hitting the motorcycle coming from behind and also referring that the offending vehicle ran over the head of the deceased, causing instantaneous death. 7. With regard to entitlement of claimants, referring to the relationship etc., found that they are entitled for compensation. While quantifying the compensation, learned MACT found that the deceased was studying III year M.B.B.S. and the college fee receipts indicating Rs.2,09,600/-. 8. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month by the learned MACT, 50% was deducted towards personal expenditure, multiplier applicable to the age of 1 st claimant, father of the deceased, "60? years was applied. Accordingly, the compensation can be awarded at Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, award was passed for Rs.7,30,000/-. 9. years was applied. Accordingly, the compensation can be awarded at Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, award was passed for Rs.7,30,000/-. 9. This appeal is filed by the claimants. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. In the context of the appeal and from the arguments advanced, it is clear that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to accident, entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same are all out of dispute. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants/appellants: 10. (i) Learned MACT erred in adopting the multiplier applicable to the father of the claimant. (ii) Learned MACT failed to award compensation under all heads. (iii) The income should have been adopted at more than Rs.15,000/- (iv) Future prospects are not added. . For the Insurance Company: 11.(i) Compensation already awarded is excessive. (ii) There are no grounds to interfere. 12. The only point under dispute is as to what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is proper or requires any interference, and if so, to what extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 13(i). Hon?ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 13(ii). , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 13(ii). Hon?ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he/she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be as per the table provided in judgment itself with reference to the age of deceased. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 14(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others , [ 2017(16) SCC 680 ] case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. 14(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon?ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 15. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon?ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 15. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon?ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. d) Just Compensation: 16. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ] , the Hon?ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just?. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just?. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. 17. The accident has taken place in the year 2007. Income adopted by the learned MACT is at Rs.15,000/- per month. The contention that the income taken at Rs.15,000/- is excessive is on one side. Failure to add future prospects, on the other side, required to be considered and weighed with balancing approach. Upon taking note of socio economic circumstances of the year 2007 and background of the claimants, and the educational qualification of the deceased as he was studying 3 rd year MBBS, the Income adopted by the learned MACT at Rs.15,000/- cannot be found as excessive. However, the same can be found as inclusive of future prospects. Hence, the income adopted is found proper. The deduction of 50% towards personal expenditure, as the deceased died unmarried, is also found proper. The annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.90,000/-, as rightly taken by learned MACT viz. which can be considered as multiplicand. 18. While adopting the multiplier, learned MACT erred in taking the age of the father of the deceased. The deceased was a student and aged about „23? years. 19. For the age group of the claimant / deceased, the multiplier applicable is „18?. Therefore, the learned MACT should have adopted the same. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,20,000/-(Rs.90,000/- x 18). The parents are entitled for filial consortium for the death of deceased at Rs.40,000/- each. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, as per the settled law. 20. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,20,000/-(Rs.90,000/- x 18). The parents are entitled for filial consortium for the death of deceased at Rs.40,000/- each. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, as per the settled law. 20. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded by the learned MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of dependency Rs.7,20,000/- Rs.16,20,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs.5,000/ Rs.15,000/- (iii) Loss of Consortium (towards filial consortium) Nil Rs.80,000/- (@Rs.40,000/- each x 2) (iv) Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.7,30,000/ Rs.17,30,000/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 7.5% 21. In view of the discussion made above, point No.1 is answered, concluding that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the findings of the learned MACT in awarding the compensation required interference and modified accordingly. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 22. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon?ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon?ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors .,2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors .,2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim 2020 (04) SCC 413 petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ] at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5 . Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Point No.2: 23. In the result , the appeal is allowed as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.7,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum under the impugned decree and order dated 21.03.2012 is modified and enhanced to Rs.17,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii). Claimant No.1/father of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,30,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. (iii). Claimant No.2/mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. (iv). Claimant Nos.3 and 4, sister and brother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. (v). The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iii). Claimant No.2/mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. (iv). Claimant Nos.3 and 4, sister and brother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. (v). The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (vi).The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable. However, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. (vii). The excessive withdrawals, if any, shall be adjusted from the amount payable among the claimants. (viii). Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (ix). Time for deposit is two months. (x). There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.