JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.388 of 2013 dated 11.06.2015. 2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.4 herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.4 – respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the appeal. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, respondent No.3 – petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of the deceased T.Venkatesh. 5.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the death of T.Venkatesh in a motor vehicle accident. 5.2 It is stated in the petition that on 23.05.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., while T.Venkatesh along with his family members were proceeding to Shirdi in Qualis vehicle bearing No.AP-09-BN-6126, on 24.05.2010 at about 06.00 a.m., when the said vehicle was crossing the outskrits of the Sholapur near Kirti factory, the driver of the Qualis vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the goods lorry bearing registration No.MH-12-FA-9567, due to which T.Venkatesh received grievous injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital at Sholapur and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day at 08.45.p.m. On the complaint lodged by the driver of the lorry, police Sholapur has registered a case in Crime No.123/2010 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the Qualis vehicle. The deceased T.Venkatesh was aged about 21 years as on the date of accident, was hale and healthy, was studying B-Tech final year and prayed to award compensation as prayed for. 6. Respondent No.4 - respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. Appellant - respondent No.2 filed counter in the O.P and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place. 6. Respondent No.4 - respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. Appellant - respondent No.2 filed counter in the O.P and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and they failed to make them as parties hence the claim petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the driver of the Qualis vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident, compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the same. 8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 09BN 6126 causing the death of T. Venkatesh? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – D.Srinivasa Chary and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the appellant – respondent No.2, they have examined RW1-M.Annapurna and got marked Ex.B1- copy of the policy. 10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of the amount payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.4 herein and appellant herein) jointly and severally. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW1 who categorically admitted that they borrowed the Qualis vehicle to go to Shirdi along with other members. The Qualis is a private vehicle which is meant for personal use of the insured but not for giving it on hire, hence Ex.B1 - policy conditions are violated. The learned Tribunal ought to have absolved the appellant – Insurance company from the liability and fastened the liability on the respondent No.4 –respondent No.1, erred in applying the multiplier, erred in assessing the loss of dependency and ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased while doing so and prayed to allow the appeal. 12. The learned Tribunal ought to have absolved the appellant – Insurance company from the liability and fastened the liability on the respondent No.4 –respondent No.1, erred in applying the multiplier, erred in assessing the loss of dependency and ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased while doing so and prayed to allow the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for just compensation, the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month instead of taking at Rs.20,000/- per month and also failed to award consortium to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners. Ex.B1 is a comprehensive policy and insurance company cannot be exonerated. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishnan and another , (2013) 1 SCC 731 (ii) Basanti Devi and another Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and others , 2021 Law Suit (SC) 1086 , (iii) S. Mohammed Hakkim Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others , 2025 ACJ 1718 (iv) Sohel Sardar Khan Vs. S. Rama Pathi Rao and another , 2013 (3) ALD 495 (DB). 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners has filed calculation memo. 14. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 15. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners are entitled for just compensation, if so? 2. Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.388 of 2013 dated 11.06.2015 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? POINT Nos. 1 and 2: 16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant – respondent No.2 that insurance company ought to have been exonerated from the liability as Ex.B1 - policy conditions are violated. 17. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: 16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant – respondent No.2 that insurance company ought to have been exonerated from the liability as Ex.B1 - policy conditions are violated. 17. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration Ex.A2 – attested copy of FIR, Ex.A3 – attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A5 – attested copy of supplementary charge sheet with that of the evidence of PW2 who deposed that he has taken Qualis vehilce from respondent No.4 – respondent No.1 on payment of batha to the driver, concluded that policy conditions are not violated, respondent No.2 [appellant herein] cannot avoid its liability towards respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners and held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Qualis. 18. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 21 years, as he is falling in the age group of 21 to 25 applied multiplier ‘18’, took the income as Rs.12,000/- per month, arrived at annual income of Rs.1,44,000/- deducted 50% towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor and arrived at loss of dependency at Rs.72,000/-, applied multiplier ‘18’ arrived at Rs.12,96,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total the compensation awarded is Rs.14,21,000/-. 19. In Balakrishnan (supra) Supreme Court held that insurer is liable to pay compensation in case of comprehensive – package policy. The same view is taken in Sohel Sardar Khan (supra). 20. The deceased T.Venkatesh is aged about 21 years as on the date of accident and he is a B-Tech student, the income is taken as Rs.20,000/- in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Basanti Devi (supra) and S. Mohammed Hakkim (supra). 21. As per the evidence of RW1, Ex.B1 – copy of the policy is a package policy hence it cannot be said that appellant – respondent No.2 can be exonerated. 22. As per Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the deceased is bachelor 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and as the age of the deceased is taken at 21 years which falls in the age group of 21-25 years appropriate multiplier is ‘18’. 23. As per National Insurance Company Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the deceased is bachelor 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and as the age of the deceased is taken at 21 years which falls in the age group of 21-25 years appropriate multiplier is ‘18’. 23. As per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 the deceased is entitled for future prospects at the rate of 40% as he falls below the age of 40 years, respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners are also entitled for consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. 24. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S. No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.20,000/- 2. Add 40% towards future prospects Rs.28,000/- 20,000 + 8,000 40% of 20,000 = 8,000/- 3. Deduct 50% towards personal expenses Rs.14,000/- 28,000 - 14,000 50% of 28,000 = 14,000 4. Annual income Rs.1,68,000/- (14,000 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘18’ Rs.30,24,000/- (1,68,000 x 18) 6. Parental consortium to respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (Rs. 48,000/- to each claimant) Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) 7. Loss of love and affection to respondent Nos.3 – petitioner No.3 Rs.48,000/- 8. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/- 9. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- Total Rs.32,04,000/- 25. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 . Hence points are answered accordingly. 26. In the result, MACMA.No.2546 of 2015 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 11.06.2015, passed in O.P.No.388 of 2013, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.14,21,000/- is enhanced to Rs.32,04,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – petitioners are directed to pay court fee on the enhanced amount. d) Respondent No.4 - respondent No.1 and appellant – respondent No.2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Respondent No.4 - respondent No.1 and appellant – respondent No.2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. e) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.12,81,600/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amounts with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. f) Respondent No.3 – petitioner No.3 is entitled for Rs.6,40,800/- and he is permitted to withdraw his entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.