JUDGMENT : These two appeals arise out of the award passed in M.V.O.P.No. 424 OF 2006 dated 31.3.2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court) Ranga Reddy district: at L.B.Nagar (for short the Tribunal). 2. M.A.C.M.A. No. 2876 of 2009, is filed by APSRTC, challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground that excessive compensation was granted, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.1819 of 2013 is filed by the claimants seeking higher compensation than what is awarded. Both the appeals are disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as the Corporation and the claimants. 3. The facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under; 4. On 3.7.2005 at about 12.30 PM near M.N.Diabetics Hospital, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-28-AN 8 0708 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the scooter of the deceased and in the accident he died instantaneously. Since no compensation was paid by the corporation, the father and mother of the deceased instituted O.P. No. 424 of 2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. As on the date of death, the deceased was working in G.E. Consumer Finance Servicing company and he was drawing a salary of Rs.8164/. Deceased was aged 22 years. He was unmarried. 5. The Corporation contested the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was also responsible and contributed to the accident and since there is negligence on the part of deceased, liability cannot be fastened on it. 6. On behalf of petitioners three witnesses were examined and marked twelve exhibits. On behalf of respondents no witness was examined and no exhibits were marked. 7. On analysis of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Corporation bus. The learned Tribunal held that no evidence was adduced by the Corporation in support of its contention that deceased contributed to the accident and rejected the contention of Corporation that there was contributory negligence of the deceased. 8. As with reference to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, Tribunal considered the age of the mother of the deceased who was aged 40 years and applied multiplier 16. 8. As with reference to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, Tribunal considered the age of the mother of the deceased who was aged 40 years and applied multiplier 16. For the purpose of quantifying the amount, the monthly salary of Rs.8164/-was taken as basis and since the deceased was unmarried after deducting 50 % towards his personal expenses, the learned Tribunal arrived at annual contribution as Rs.65,312/- and applying the multiplier of 16 arrived at compensation towards loss of income as Rs.10,44,992/-. In addition to it, the Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Though the learned Tribunal determined compensation payable as Rs.10,96,992/-, since the claim made by the claimants was Rs.10,00,000/- only, the learned Tribunal restricted the quantum of compensation as Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. The learned standing counsel for corporation raises two fold contentions: (1).There was contributory negligence by the deceased and hence Corporation is not liable to pay compensation; and (2).The Tribunal erred in granting excess compensation. 10. Learned standing counsel relied on decisions in BIJOY KUMAR DUGAR Vs. BAIDYADHAR DUTTA AND OTHERS (AIR S006 SC 1255= (2006) 3 SCC 242 ), SMT. SARLA VERMA & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER ( 2009(3) SUPREME 487 ) and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DINDIGAL, TAMIL NADU STATE AND ANOTHER Vs. VASIREDDY SUJATHARANI ( 2011(5) ALD 156 (DB)) 11. The claimants who are appellants in the connected appeal are challenging the award on the ground that compensation awarded is insufficient. It is their contention that the Tribunal having held that claimants are entitled to more compensation, ought not to have restricted compensation to what is claimed in the claim petition. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in not adding future rise in income that could have been earned by the deceased to arrive at the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that age of the deceased shall apply to determine the multiplier. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for claimants relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NAGAPPA Vs. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS, (2003 ACJ 12) AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS (2012 ACJ 2002). 13. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for claimants relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NAGAPPA Vs. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS, (2003 ACJ 12) AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS (2012 ACJ 2002). 13. Based on the rival contentions of the Corporation and the claimants, the issues that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there was contributory negligence by the deceased? 2. Whether claimants are entitled to addition of future earnings for determination of the quantum of compensation ? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair ? ISSUE NO.1 : 14. It is the categorical finding of the learned Tribunal that Corporation did not lead evidence to assert their contention that the deceased also contributed for the accident. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus. 15. The first information report was lodged with the Jubilee Hills police station by Mr. A Kalyan who was traveling at the time and who was witness to the accident. Said person is no way concerned to the deceased. The complainant states in his complaint that accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Mr.Kalyan was examined as P.W.3. He stood by the contents of First Information Report. Crime No. 225 of 2000 was registered on 3.7.2005. The police investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet in the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The charge sheet alleges that the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the bus at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and while trying to over take the deceased moped from the left side, dashed the moped as a result moped rider fell down on the road and APSRTC bus right side rear tyre ran over the deceased head and he died instantaneously. Thus, evidence on record established rash and negligent driving of bus and there is no evidence to establish negligence/ contributory negligence on the part of the deceased that resulted in the accident. 16. Thus, evidence on record established rash and negligent driving of bus and there is no evidence to establish negligence/ contributory negligence on the part of the deceased that resulted in the accident. 16. If the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident takes the defense that the accident occurred due to negligence/ contributory negligence of the victim, the burden lies on the owner to establish with cogent evidence that the accident occurred as a result of such negligence or contributory negligence. The appellant corporation has not discharged its obligation before the claims Tribunal in establishing that accident caused due to the negligence/ contributory negligence of the deceased and even before this Court also no further evidence is brought in support of their contention. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant corporation that accident resulting in the death of the deceased was due to the negligent driving by the deceased. 17. In SARLA VERMA case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of arriving at the future loss of annual income of the deceased, additional 50 % can be added on the last salary drawn by the individual. 18. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA case, the salary drawn by the deceased be determined by adding 50 % as future prospects. In the said manner the salary of the deceased in this case would come to Rs.12,246/- per month, and total annual income comes to Rs.1,46,952/-. ISSUE NO.3 : 19. On the quantum of compensation, on the one hand the appellant corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and on the other hand the claimants-petitioners/respondents contend that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is far less. The learned counsel for claimants submits that even though the Claims Tribunal held that petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.10,96,992/- but granted only Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that only Rs.10,00,000/-was claimed. Learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that in terms of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA and AMRIT BHANU SHALI cases, petitioners are entitled to higher compensation than the compensation claimed and more than the compensation determined by the claims Tribunal. Learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that in terms of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA and AMRIT BHANU SHALI cases, petitioners are entitled to higher compensation than the compensation claimed and more than the compensation determined by the claims Tribunal. Learned counsel further contends that it is permissible for the appellate Court to grant more compensation than claimed, if the compensation determined is just compensation. 20. Learned Tribunal determined the compensation by applying the multiplier of 16 taking the age of the mother of the deceased into account. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future loss of earnings and contribution to the family as with reference to the determination of appropriate multiplier. In SARLA VERMA case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the deceased is unmarried the age of the mother should be taken into consideration. Considering the decision of SARLA VERMA the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AMRIT BHANU SHALI case held that the selection of the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AMRIT BHANU SHALI case held that age of the mother has no nexus with the computation of the compensation. Thus as the deceased was aged 22 years, as per the principle laid down in SARLA VERMA case the appropriate multiplier would be 18, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 only. In SARLA VERMA case the Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed to count the future loss of earnings by applying 50 % of the existing salary on the date of the death of the person to determine the quantum of compensation. It is also held that if the deceased is unmarried, 50 % of his earnings should be treated as personal expenses and be deducted while computing loss of contribution to the family. 21. In view of the above principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants-petitioners are entitled to determination of compensation by adding 50 % to the salary earned by the deceased at the time of his death. The deceased was earning Rs.8164/- per month and on adding 50 % i.e., Rs.4082/- per month the future monthly earnings would be Rs.12,246/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the same is deducted towards personal expenses. The deceased was earning Rs.8164/- per month and on adding 50 % i.e., Rs.4082/- per month the future monthly earnings would be Rs.12,246/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the same is deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the total annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.6123/- and annually to Rs.73,476/-. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 22 years and as per the principle laid down in AMRIT BHANU SHALI case read with SARLA VERMA case the appropriate multiplier is 18 and on applying the same, the claimants/appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,22,568/- (Rs.73,476 X 18). Thus, compensation determined is more than the compensation claimed before claims Tribunal and in this appeal. 22. The further question that arises is, can this Court grant higher compensation than what is claimed? 23. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 ) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: ISSUE NO.2 : “7. Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’) there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is— it should be ‘just’ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. The other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.’ Hence, the Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 24. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2012) 12 SCC 274 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “2. Despite many a pronouncement in the field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. It has been stated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (No. 2) that it is a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance. 3. In Jai Bhagwan v. Laxman Singh (1994) 5 SCC 5 )a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the assessment of damages in personal injury actions, reproduced the following passage from the decision by the House of Lords in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard (1964 AC 326= (1963) 2 WLR 1359=(1963 2 All ER 625(HL)): (Shephard case, All ER p. 631 D-G) “My Lords, the damages which are to be awarded for a tort are those which ‘so far as money can compensate, will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act’ [Admiralty Commissioners v. Susquehanna (Owners), The Susquehanna]. (1926 AC 655=1926 All ER 124 (HL))The words ‘so far as money can compensate’ point to the impossibility of equating money with human suffering or personal deprivations. A money award can be calculated so as to make good a financial loss. Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. When all this is said it still must be that amounts which are awarded are to a considerable extent conventional.” (Jai Bhagwan case (cited supra) 8. The conception of “just compensation” is fundamentally concretised on certain well-established principles and accepted legal parameters as well as principles of equity and good conscience….. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi ( (1979) 4 SCC 365 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 996) this Court has expressed thus: “2. … the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be inhered.” 25. In catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down principles for determination of compensation. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be inhered.” 25. In catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down principles for determination of compensation. Such principles include age of the deceased, his marital status, number of dependants, his earnings as on the date of death, possible future earnings, personal expenses, loss of love and affection, companionship etc. Thus, while determining appropriate (just) compensation these parameters have to be kept in mind. By applying various principles for determination of compensation, a sum is arrived. This would be the just compensation to which claimants are entitled. Once, such amount is determined it should be granted, even if the same is higher than the claim made. 26. In the instant case, some of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court to determine just compensation were not applied by the claims Tribunal and by applying the said principles, the amount determined is higher than what is claimed. 27. Thus, in terms of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.13,22,568/- as compensation payable to them, whereas the Tribunal granted only Rs.10,00,000/-. Though petitioners claimed Rs.10,00,000/- before the Claims Tribunal and Rs.10,92,000/- in this Court, the computation principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would enable them to earn more compensation which according to Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is just compensation. 28. Therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled to Rs.13,22,568/- towards pecuniary loss. In addition claimants-appellants are also entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as determined by the Tribinal. Thus, in all the claimants- appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.13,74,568/-. Accordingly, the order of the Claims Tribunal dated 31.3.2009 is modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.13,74,568/-. Since claimants have sought for a compensation of Rs.10,92,000/- in their appeal (MACMA 1819 of 2013) and since there is a delay of 1096 days in filing the appeal by the claimants, out of enhanced amount of Rs.3,74,568/-the claimants/appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6 % per annum only on Rs.92,000/- from the date of institution of their appeal till the date of realization. 29. 29. In view of the same, the appeal in MACMA No. 2876 OF 2009 is dismissed and the appeal in MACMA No. 1819 OF 2013 is allowed. Sequel to the same, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending stand closed.