JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Award, dated 28th July, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II (Fast Track), Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in Claim Petition No. 106 of 2004, RBT. Cl. Pet. No. 40 of 2005, titled as Samitra Devi & others versus Smt. Kusum Sood & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization of the same came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?), has given birth to both these appeals. Thus, I deem it proper to decide both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 325 of 2006 on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 24 of 2008 on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate. Brief facts: 4. The claimants, being the legal representatives of deceased Govind Ram, have claimed compensation as damages by the medium of Claim Petition No. 106 of 2004, RBT. Cl. Pet. No. 40 of 2005, titled as Samitra Devi & others versus Smt. Kusum Sood & another, on the ground that Govind Ram, their bread earner, became the victim of motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Sunil Kumar, while driving truck, bearing registration No. HP-34-4265, rashly and negligently, on 2nd October, 2004, at about 1.20 a.m. near village Jamli, District Bilaspur. Further contended that deceased-Govind Ram was driver by profession, was working with Saiyla Motors Serwari Bazar, Kullu, was earning Rs.5,000/- as a driver and Rs.5,000/- from agricultural and horticultural vocations. Driver-Sunil Kumar has also lost his life in the said accident. 5. The owner-insured and the insurer have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 19th April, 2005: ?1. Whether Govind Ram died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-34-4265 driven by Sunil Kumar, its driver, who also died in the accident? OPP 2. If issue-1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? Whether Govind Ram died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-34-4265 driven by Sunil Kumar, its driver, who also died in the accident? OPP 2. If issue-1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether Sunil Kumar the driver of truck No. HP-34- 4265 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 4. Whether the petitioners are not legal representatives of deceased Govind Ram? OPR-2 5. Whether deceased Govind Ram was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle in question at the time of accident. If so, its effect? OPR-2 6. Relief.? 7. The claimants have examined Dr. Savita Mehta as PW-1, Shri Mohar Singh as PW-2, ASI Mohinder Singh as PW-3, Shri Sanjay Sood as PW-5 and one of the claimants, Smt. Samitra Devi, has stepped into the witness box as PW-4. The owner-insured has examined Shri Vidya Sagar as RW-2. The insurer has examined Shri Diler Singh, Motor Licence Clerk, as RW-1 and Shri D.S. Suangla as RW-3 in support of its case. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimants have proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that Sunil Kumar had driven the offending vehicle on the said date rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which deceased- Govind Ram, the bread earner of the claimants, and the said driver-Sunil Kumar lost their lives. The parties to the lis have not questioned the findings returned on issue No. 1 by the medium of both the appeals. Hence, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4: 10. The insurer had to prove both these issues, has not led any evidence to that effect and the findings returned on both these issues are also not questioned by the insurer or any other party. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4 are also upheld. Issues No. 2 and 5: 11. Both these issues are interlinked. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these issues together, which are also the subject matter of both the appeals. 12. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4 are also upheld. Issues No. 2 and 5: 11. Both these issues are interlinked. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these issues together, which are also the subject matter of both the appeals. 12. The claimants have claimed in the claim petition that deceased-Govind Ram had gone to Chandigarh with his brother, who was to be admitted in hospital and after admitting him in PGI, Chandigarh, embarked in the offending vehicle, which was loaded with cement, met with the accident at Jamli, District Bilaspur, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Sunil Kumar, who had lost control over the same. 13. The owner-insured has pleaded in the reply that deceased- Govind Ram was employed as a second driver/helper and was travelling, on the said day, as a helper in the said vehicle. It is apt to reproduce para 24 (i) of the reply filed by the owner-insured herein: ?24. i) that this sub-para of the claim petition is correct only to the extent that petitioner was travelling in truck no. HP-34-4265 which was loaded with cement and the truck met with an accident near Jamli in Distt. Bilaspur. Rest of the para is wrong and therefore denied. The allegations that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck are totally false and baseless therefore specifically denied. It is also denied that the deceased Govind Ram had hired the truck from Chandigarh. In fact, Sh. Govind Ram deceased was employed as driver by the respondent on 30-09-2004 and was sent alongwith the truck no. HP-34-4265 on trial basis as helper to the original driver of the truck.? 14. The claimants have led evidence, but they have not disputed the said fact. However, claimant No. 1, Smt. Samitra Devi, widow of deceased-Govind Ram has deposed that deceased-Govind Ram was employed with Saiyla Motors Serwari Bazar, Kullu. PW-5, Shri Sanjay Sood, proprietor of Saiyla Motors, Serwari Bazar, Kullu, has also deposed that Govind Ram was engaged as driver in the said firm but had left the job on 25.09.2004. The said fact has not been disputed in the cross-examination. 15. PW-5, Shri Sanjay Sood, proprietor of Saiyla Motors, Serwari Bazar, Kullu, has also deposed that Govind Ram was engaged as driver in the said firm but had left the job on 25.09.2004. The said fact has not been disputed in the cross-examination. 15. The owner-insured, Smt. Kusum Sood, has examined Shri Vidya Sagar Sharma as RW-2, who has deposed that Govind Ram was engaged as driver by Smt. Kusum Sood on 30th September, 2004, was sent to Chandigarh on 1st October, 2004 with the offending vehicle as a helper, was under the employment of Smt. Kusum Sood on the date of accident. 16. The insurer had not led any evidence on this count. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants and the owner-insured has remained unrebutted. 17. Claimant No. 1-Smt. Samitra Devi, who is an illiterate woman, belongs to remote area, is a rustic villager, may not be knowing whether her husband had left job from one firm/company, was employed with Smt. Kusum Sood. She has also not disputed the factum of employment of the deceased by Smt. Kusum Sood at the relevant point of time. 18. Having said so, the owner-insured has specifically pleaded and proved by leading evidence that deceased-Govind Ram was engaged as helper/second driver with the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and risk was covered. 19. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that deceased-Govind Ram was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, it can be safely held that deceased-Govind Ram was not a gratuitous passenger. 20. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that risk of the second driver is not covered. I have gone through the insurance policy, Ext. RW-3/A, which covers the risk of six employees. 21. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the schedule appended with the insurance policy do disclose that in addition to risk of the owner and driver, the risk of six employees is also covered. Thus, risk of helper/second driver is also covered. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 22. Viewed thus, the appeal filed by the insurer, i.e. FAO No. 325 of 2006, merits dismissal. 23. The second point to be determined is – whether the amount of compensation awarded is just and appropriate? 24. Thus, risk of helper/second driver is also covered. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 22. Viewed thus, the appeal filed by the insurer, i.e. FAO No. 325 of 2006, merits dismissal. 23. The second point to be determined is – whether the amount of compensation awarded is just and appropriate? 24. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 29 years at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16', which is just and proper in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 25. The claimants have pleaded that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 5,000/- from the salary as a driver and Rs.5,000/- from other vocations. The claimants have proved that the salary of the deceased as driver was Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting one third towards his personal expenses for the reason that the claimants are five in number and one fourth was to be deducted in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma's case (supra), upheld by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra). Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency, while deducting one fourth, to the tune of Rs.3,800/- per month, instead of Rs. 3,300/- as held by the Tribunal. 26. The Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,63,600/-, but has awarded only Rs. 5,00,000/- including no fault liability on the ground that the claimants have claimed only Rs. 5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 27. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in making such a finding. It is beaten law of land that compensation should be just and proper and claim petition cannot be scuttled away enroute on the ground that the claimants have not claimed the amount to which they are entitled to. 28. 27. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in making such a finding. It is beaten law of land that compensation should be just and proper and claim petition cannot be scuttled away enroute on the ground that the claimants have not claimed the amount to which they are entitled to. 28. I believe that the Tribunal has lost sight of the mandate of Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ?the MV Act?) read with Section 166 (4) of the MV Act. 29. The MV Act has gone through a sea change in the year 1994 and sub-section (6) has been added to Section 158 of the MV Act, which reads as under: ?158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases. - ................................... (6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.? In terms of this provision, the report is to be submitted to the Tribunal having the jurisdiction. 30. Also, an amendment has been carried out in Section 166 of the MV Act and sub-section (4) stands added. It is apt to reproduce subsection (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act herein: ?166. Application for compensation. - ....................................... (4) 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.? It mandates that a Tribunal has to treat report under Section 158 (6) (supra) of the MV Act as a claim petition. Thus, there is no handicap or restriction in granting compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 31. It mandates that a Tribunal has to treat report under Section 158 (6) (supra) of the MV Act as a claim petition. Thus, there is no handicap or restriction in granting compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 31. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa versus Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 674. It is apt to reproduce paras 7, 9 and 10 of the judgment herein: ?7. Firstly, under the provisions of 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 Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. 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 M.V. 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; (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. 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.? 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, Claims Tribunal in 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. 8. .......................... 9. It appears that due importance is not given to subsection (4) of Section 166 which provides that the Tribunal shall treat any report of the accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158, as an application for compensation under this Act. 10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to ?make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just?. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.? 32. The Apex Court in a case titled as A.P.S.R.T.C. & another versus M. Ramadevi & others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1213, held that the Appellate Court was within its jurisdiction and powers in enhancing the compensation despite the fact that the claimants had not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. 33. The Apex Court in another case titled as Ningamma & another versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4916, held that the Court is duty bound to award just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. It is profitable to reproduce para 25 of the judgment herein: ?25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with ?Just Compensation? and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting ?Just Compensation? in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the Court is duty bound and entitled to award ?Just Compensation? irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the Court is duty bound and entitled to award ?Just Compensation? irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court.? 34. The Apex Court in a latest judgment in a case titled Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & others versus Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5800, has specifically held that compensation can be enhanced while deciding the appeal, even though prayer for enhancing the compensation is not made by way of appeal or cross appeal/objections. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: ?9. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we are of the view that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as mentioned under the various heads in the table as provided above in this judgment even though certain claims were not preferred by them as we are of the view that they are legally and legitimately entitled for the said claims. Accordingly we award the compensation, more than what was claimed by them as it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony as held by this Court in a catena of cases. Therefore, this Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants.? 35. This Court in FAO No. 226 of 2006, titled as United India Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur & another, decided on 28th March, 2014, has laid down the same principle. 36. Having said so, it is held that the claimants have lost their source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,800 x 12 = Rs. 4,56,000/- x 16 = Rs. 7,29,600/-. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs. 20,000/- under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love & affection' and 'loss of estate'. Hence, the claimants are entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,59,600/- (i.e. Rs. 7,29,600/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-), including the interim compensation, i.e. Rs. 50,000/-, with interest @ 9% per annum. 37. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, Rs. 50,000/- be paid to claimant No. 5, i.e. father of the deceased out of the total amount of compensation. Out of the remaining amount of Rs.6,59,600/- (i.e. Rs.7,59,600/- - Rs. 50,000/- - Rs. 50,000/- {interim award amount}), one third is to be paid to claimant No. 1, i.e. widow of the deceased, after proper identification and the remaining amount is to be deposited in the name of claimants No. 2 to 4 in Fixed Deposits in equal shares till they attain the age of majority. 38. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the insurer, i.e. FAO No. 325 of 2006, is dismissed; the appeal filed by the claimants, i.e. FAO No. 24 of 2008, is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 39. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.