JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum - I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in OP.No.1043 of 2013, dated 30.06.2015. 2. Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondents in OP.No.1043 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners submits that respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the Appeal. 4.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed petition under Sections 140(c) and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 475/1B of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization for the death of J.Rajeshwari in the motor vehicle accident. 4.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased J.Rajeshwari. 4.3. On 02.12.2013 at about 12:40 P.M. while J.Rajeshwari was proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP 28 Y 2215 as a passenger from Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, Nijampet towards Gandi Maisamma X Roads, when they reached at Bangaru Maisamma Temple, Bowrampet, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District a Lorry bearing No.HR 61 A 3217 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto, due to which J.Rajeshwari sustained multiple fracture injuries and died on the spot. On the complaint, PS Dundigal has registered a case in Crime No.727 of 2013 under Sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the crime vehicle. 4.4. Deceased J.Rajeshwari was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident and was earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month by working as an Attender in M/s. Navodaya Packaging Products Private Limited and was contributing the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased J.Rajeshwari, appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost his wife. Appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their mother and prayed to allow the OP as prayed for. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. Due to the sudden death of the deceased J.Rajeshwari, appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost his wife. Appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their mother and prayed to allow the OP as prayed for. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place, also denied the age and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the OP. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased namely Late Smt.J.Rajeshwari died in a Motor vehicle accident on 02.12.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.HR 61 A 3217 by its driver? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the Respondents? 4. To what relief? 8. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-P.Ravi, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence but got marked Ex.B1. 9. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence of PW.1 with that of the documents has awarded an amount of Rs.6,22,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month against Rs.9,000/- (Ex.A7), and also erred in not awarding future prospects and wrongly applied the multiplier and also failed to award amount under consortium and prayed to allow the Appeal. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and rightly calculated the amount by applying proper multiplier, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed Calculation Memo. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are : 1. Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just compensation, if so? 2. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed Calculation Memo. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. 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: 15. Appellants-petitioners have challenged the quantum in the Appeal. 16. The learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the appellants have not examined the person who issued Ex.A7- Salary certificate of the deceased and there is no supporting and corroborating evidence to substantiate the same. Thereby, held that a person who is able bodied is expected to earn Rs.150/- per day and arrived at Rs.4,500/- per month, as the deceased was aged about 30 years, applied the multiplier ‘17’ and also deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses, in total arrived at Rs.6,12,000/- and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and other miscellaneous expenses. 17.1. The evidence of appellant No.1 is that the deceased was working as Attender Cum Helper in M/s. Navodaya Packaging Products Private Limited, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the salary was paid by cash and he do not know the designation of the Officer who has issued Ex.A7-Salary Certificate. PW.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A7 is a created document for the purpose of the case. 18. On perusal of Ex.A7-Salary certificate dated 23.12.2013 which was issued by Navodaya Packaging Products Private Limited which states that Smt. J.Rajeshwari worked in the company from 01.07.2013 to 01.12.2013 temporarily and her salary was Rs.8,500/- per month. Accident has taken place on 02.12.2013, the deceased worked in Navodaya Packaging Products Private Limited till 01.12.2013. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the Salary Certificate of the deceased and ought to have taken Rs.8,500/- towards the salary. Though appellant No.1 is cross-examined by respondent No.2 counsel no incriminating material is elicited from his cross-examination except putting suggestions. Hence, this Court is of the view that the salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,500/- per month which will meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 30 years hence the same age is taken for calculation. 19. Hence, this Court is of the view that the salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,500/- per month which will meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 30 years hence the same age is taken for calculation. 19. Learned Tribunal has not awarded amount under Loss of estate, consortium and failed to add future prospects. Appellants- petitioners are entitled for the same as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 20. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Salary Rs. 8,500/- 2. Add 40% future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi1) Rs.11,900/- (8,500/- + 3,400/-) (8,500/- x 40% = 3,400/-) 3. Deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses (as per Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) Rs.7,933/- (11,900/- – 3,967/-) (1/3rd of 11,900 = 3,967) 4. Annul income Rs.95,196/- (7,933 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘17’ Rs.16,18,332/- (95,196/- x 17) 6. Spouse and Parental Consortium (Rs.48,400/- each x 3) Rs.1,45,200/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.17,99,832/- 21. Interest to be awarded @ 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt.Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 . Hence, points are answered accordingly. 22. In the result, MACMA.No.2458 of 2015 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 30.06.2015, passed in OP No. 1043 of 2013, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,22,000/- is enhanced to Rs.17,99,832/- together with costs and interest @ 9% 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.10,79,900/- along with costs and interest thereon and he is permitted to withdraw his entire amount without furnishing security. e) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.10,79,900/- along with costs and interest thereon and he is permitted to withdraw his entire amount without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.3,59,966/- each with costs and interest thereon, as they are minors and their share amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed.