JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act, 1988’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in M.O.P.No.74 of 2002 dated 20.02.2006. 2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. Hence, no notice is required. 3.1. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents in the O.P. 3.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children, appellant No.5-petitioner No.5 is the mother and appellant No.6-petitioner No.6 is the brother of deceased Narsimha. 4.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of Narsimha with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 4.2. It is stated in the petition that on 08.11.2001, Narsimha started on his scooter bearing number AP10L86 from his native village to go to Secunderabad, when he reached near Annapoorna Grape Garden, Dhoolapally Village, one lorry bearing No.AP28T6230 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Kompally Cross Roads and dashed against the scooter of Narsimha, due to which he fell down on the road and died instantaneously. 4.3. As on the date of accident, deceased Narsimha was aged about 41 years, was working as Safai (Sweeper) in Indian Air Force, Secunderabad, earning Rs.6,500/- per month and contributing the same to his family. On the complaint, PS Quthubullapur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2001, under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the lorry and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 5.1. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned tribunal. 5.2. Respondent No.2 has filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased, also contended that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident, it was not roadworthy and the claim made by the appellants-petitioners is excessive and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 6. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues. i. Whether the accident has occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP28T6230? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii. To what relief? 7. Appellant No.2 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2-Sri P. Goverdhan Reddy, PW3-B. Moses and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1. No oral evidence is adduced by the respondent No.2 but got marked Ex.B1-certificate of insurance with schedule. 8. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellants-petitioners coupled with the documents marked thereon has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.5,72,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less amount instead of awarding the amount claimed in the O.P and erred in taking the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month instead of taking it as Rs.6,056/- per month as per Ex.X1. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards consortium and other heads claimed by the appellants-petitioners. Counsel further submits that the amount shown in Ex.X1 has to be taken in toto and in support of his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of 1. Kavita Devi and others v. Sunil Kumar and another , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1069, 2. S. Narayanamma and others v. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications, New Delhi and others , 2002 (3) ALT 265 (S.B) and prayed to allow the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. The personal deductions has to be deducted at 1/4th as the dependants are six in number and the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal ought to have been 14 instead of 15 and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 11. Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation. 12. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just compensation? If so, 2. 11. Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation. 12. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just compensation? If so, 2. Whether the Award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? Point Nos.1 and 2: 14. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Narsimha as Rs.4,500/- per month and arrived at yearly income as Rs.54,000/-, deducted 1/3 rd (Rs.18,000/-) towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.36,000/-, applied multiplier 15 and arrived at loss of dependency as Rs.5,40,000/-, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In toto, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.5,72,000/-. 15. PW-3-B. Moses is the Wing Commander of the Office of College of Air-War Fare, Secunderabad. He deposed that the deceased worked as Sweeper in Air-War Fare, Secunderabad, his pay slip is Ex.X1 and his salary is Rs.6,056/- per month. Ex.A6 corroborates with Ex.X1 and the deceased joined in service on 17.11.1984. The age of retirement is 58 years and the deceased would have reached the cadre of Supervisor if he is alive and he can give the pay-scales of the two before mentioned designations, they are 1) Rs.2,500/- - 55-2660-60-30200 and 2) Rs.2,610-60- 3150-65-3540/-. In his cross-examination, he stated that as per the records, the date of birth of deceased is 14.10.1960. Generally, pay scales contain deductions and Ex.X1 shows the gross salary without deductions. 16. In Kavitha Devi, the Supreme Court observed that “in motor accidents claims, proven salary including allowances should be considered for loss of dependency; future prospects and conventional heads must be applied as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 case to ensure just compensation. 17. In S. Narayanamma, the High Court held that the contributions made by the deceased-employee towards Employees' Provident Fund, Life Insurance (LIC), Group Insurance and the deductions shown in the salary certificate of the deceased- employee towards the vehicle loan installment, benefit fund and also the amounts received by the deceased-employee towards Interim Relief, Special Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, need not be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased for ascertaining the income. 18. 18. In view of the decisions stated supra, this Court is of the view that the salary of the deceased be taken at Rs.6,056/- as per Ex.X1 coupled with evidence of PW3 and the appellants-petitioners are entitled for consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and future prospects of the deceased in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi . 19. Learned tribunal has taken the age of the deceased Narsimha as 42 years, this Court is not interfering with the same. 20. As per Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 the personal expenses of the deceased to be deducted at 1/4 th instead of 1/3 rd as the dependants are 4 to 6 in number and the age of the deceased is taken at 42 years and he falls in the age group of 41 – 45 years, appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. 21. Calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 22. Appellant No.6-petitioner No.6 is the brother of the deceased and was a major as on the date of filing of the O.P, he is not entitled for any consortium. The learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant No.6-petitioner No.6, this Court is not disturbing the same. 23. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and this Court retains the said rate of interest. Hence points are answered accordingly. 24. In the result, MACMA.No.4916 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 20.02.2006, passed in M.O.P.No.74 of 2002, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5,72,000 /- is enhanced to Rs.12,70,300/- together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) Appellants-petitioners shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount. d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. e) Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.7,62,180/- together with costs and interest thereon, out of which Rs.40,000/- awarded to appellant No.6- petitioner No.6 has to be deducted which comes to Rs.7,22,180/- (Rs. e) Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.7,62,180/- together with costs and interest thereon, out of which Rs.40,000/- awarded to appellant No.6- petitioner No.6 has to be deducted which comes to Rs.7,22,180/- (Rs. 7,62,180/- - Rs.40,000/-), she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 to 5-petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for Rs.1,27,030/- each with costs and interest thereon. Appellant No.2 and 5-petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount without furnishing security. g) Appellant Nos.3 and 4-petitioner Nos.3 and 4 being minors their share amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed.