JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in OP No.988 of 2002, dated 24.03.2008. 2. Appellants are the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the respondents in the O.P. 3. Notice got issued to respondent Nos.3 to 5 are served vide office endorsement dated 04.11.2022. 4. Appeal against respondent No.1 is dismissed for default vide Court order dated 13.07.2016, even otherwise he remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization for the death of deceased K.Basavaraj. 5.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife. Appellant No.2- petitioner No.2 is the son. Respondent No.3 is the father and respondent No.4 is the mother. Respondent No.5 is the sister of the deceased K.Basavaraj. 5.3. It is stated in the petition that on 30.08.2002 while Basavaraj was proceeding from Cherlapally on foot towards ECIL Cross Road near Phase-I I.D.A. Cherlapally, one Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP11-V6357 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Basavaraj on his back side at about 8.20 a.m. due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries, he was shifted to Care Poulomi Hospital but he succumbed to injuries on the same day at 5.00 p.m. Deceased Basavaraj was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident and was doing Fruit business, earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation and prayed to allow the O.P. 6. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the claim is excessive and the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, prayed to dismiss the O.P. 8. 7. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the claim is excessive and the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, prayed to dismiss the O.P. 8. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter and admitted that appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and appellant No.2-petitioner No.2 is the son and these respondents are the parents, they are depending on the income of the deceased and they have one unmarried daughter and they are entitled for legitimate share and prayed to allow the O.P. 9. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP11-V 6357? 2. Whether the accident vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and there is any violation of policy conditions? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? 10. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-K.Raghu, got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence but got marked Ex.B1-copy of Policy. 11. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the appellants-petitioners with that of the documents marked thereon, awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,600/- to the appellants and respondent Nos.3 and 4 with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the claim of respondent No.5 is dismissed without costs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the Tribunal committed serious irregularity and illegality in awarding meagre compensation of Rs.3,17,600/- against the claim of Rs.4,50,000/- and wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,100/- per month instead of taking it at Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection to the claimants as well as to respondent Nos.3 to 5 who are the parents and sister of the deceased Basavaraj. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 9% per annum instead of 7.5%. The Tribunal also erred in dismissing the O.P. against respondent No.5 and prayed to allow the Appeal. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for filial consortium and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 14. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 9% per annum instead of 7.5%. The Tribunal also erred in dismissing the O.P. against respondent No.5 and prayed to allow the Appeal. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for filial consortium and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 14. Appellants’ counsel has filed Calculation Memo. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused the material on record. 16. 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 : 17. Appellants-petitioners have challenged the quantum in the Appeal. 18. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month and arrived at Rs.24,200/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family is arrived at Rs.16,800/- per annum. As the deceased was in the age group of 22 to 25 years and applied multiplier ‘17’, arrived at Rs.2,85,600/- and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1-petitioner No.1, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total awarded Rs.3,17,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. In so far as respondent No.5 is concerned, the learned Tribunal observed that respondent No.5 is not entitled for any compensation as her parents are alive. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,46,300/- towards the share of appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,31,300/- towards the share of appellant No.2- petitioner No.2 and awarded Rs.20,000/- each to respondent Nos.3 and 4. 19. In the grounds of Appeal, the appellants-petitioners contended that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are entitled for compensation towards loss of love and affection on the death of the deceased Basavaraj. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter in the main O.P. specifically contending that they have unmarried daughter and they are entitled for legitimate share. As per the amended petition respondent No.5 is shown as a student. 20. The evidence of appellant No.1-PW.1 is the replica of her petition averments. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter in the main O.P. specifically contending that they have unmarried daughter and they are entitled for legitimate share. As per the amended petition respondent No.5 is shown as a student. 20. The evidence of appellant No.1-PW.1 is the replica of her petition averments. In her cross-examination by respondent No.2 counsel she stated that her husband used to purchase Fruits from the Market and used to sell them, there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of her husband as Rs.4,500/- per month and her son was four months old when Basavaraj died. Appellant No.1-PW.1 stated in the cross- examination done by respondent Nos.3 to 5 counsel that she denied the suggestion that herself, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are residing under one roof and they are depending on the income of the deceased. 21. The learned Tribunal has taken less amount as income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month. Deceased is maintaining his wife and son, he has his parents and one sister who are respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein and this Court is of the view that if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month will meet the ends of justice, as respondent No.2 has not led any rebuttal evidence on the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown as 24 years in the claim petition and same age is shown in Ex.A4-CC of PME report. Hence, this Court takes the age of the deceased as 24 years and he falls within the age group of 21 to 25, appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Appellants are also entitled for future prospects of the deceased and they are also entitled for consortium with that of respondent Nos.3 to 5 as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 22.1. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 22.2. Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. This Court is not interfering with the same. 23. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 22.1. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 22.2. Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. This Court is not interfering with the same. 23. In the result, MACMA.No.2460 of 2008 is allowed, dismissal order passed against respondent No.5 is set aside, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 24.03.2008, passed in OP No.988 of 2002, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,17,600/- is enhanced to Rs.9,53,400/- together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The Appellants-petitioners shall pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. d) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 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. e) Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,76,700/- along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount without furnishing security. f) Appellant No.2-petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,38,350/- with costs and interest thereon, as he is minor, his share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till he attain majority. g) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.95,340/- each with costs and interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw their entire amount without furnishing security. h) Respondent No.5 is entitled for Rs.47,670/- along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.