Judgment: 1. These three appeals are the outcome of the same accident and common point was involved though from the different orders of the Tribunal in different M.V.O.Ps and since these three are connected with each other, this Court has taken up at request of both sides for common disposal. 2. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed these appeals, having been aggrieved by the Orders/Awards of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.141, 153 & 154 of 2010 dated 17.04.2012. The Tribunal awarded (i) compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- in O.P.No.141 of 2010 as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, (ii) compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- in O.P. No.153 of 2010 as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- and (iii) compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in O.P. No.154 of 2010 as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 8% per annum respectively with the finding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. Heard Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, the learned standing counsel for the appellant-2nd respondent (insurer) of the Lorry GJ 9V 3768 belongs to the claim petition-1st respondent (who remained exparte before the Tribunal and not chosen to putforth appearance herein) and Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeals. 4. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeals. 4. The respective common contentions in the grounds of appeal by the appellant (insurer) in nutshell are that the respective awards of the Tribunal are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case in ignorance of the factum of there was no valid driving licence to the driver of the crime vehicle as on date of accident that is proved from the evidence of R.W-1 of the driving licence No.13410/91 which was valid from 02.08.1991 to 30.03.2009 (non-transport) and from 18.05.1994 to 17.05.1997 (transport) was with no renewals later and thus as on the date of accident dated 18.08.2000 the driver of the crime lorry has no driving licence in existence and therefore, the 2nd respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation but for only the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle, apart from the compensation and rate of interest awarded in all the three claims are on high side also from the fact of accident was the result of car drivers negligence, if not, atleast outcome of contributory negligence of both vehicles drivers to so fix with said contentions in the course of hearing the counsel for appellant prayed to allow the appeals exonerating the insurer from liability and by setting aside the awards passed by the Tribunal to the just extent. 5. Whereas the contentions of the respective claimants are that though not the joint liability, it is a fit case for pay and recovery for not having an effective driving licence as on date of accident from driver of the crime lorry was having a transport driving licence previously is enough to say that he knows the driving of a transport vehicle and merely because no valid licence at the time of accident is not a grave violation to escape from its liability by insurer and thereby once the Tribunal exercised discretion, for this Court while sitting in the appeal, there is nothing to interfere not only on quantum and rate of interest but also on the liability of the insurer and insured but for if at all to the extent of pay and recovery of the compensation amounts and hence prayed to dismiss the appeals. 6. 6. Now the common points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the respective findings of the Tribunal in fixing the liability against the 2nd respondent-insurer of the crime vehicle is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in the appeal? 2. Whether there is any contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal including rate of interest are high and requires interference and if so to what extent and with what observations? 3. To what result? POINTS-1 & 2: 7. As the evidence for discussion with reference to documents one and same, to avoid repetition of facts both the points taken up together. The facts proved before the Tribunal are that on 18.08.2010 at about 2.15 P.M Nalla Sanjeeva Reddy, Nagidi Krishna Reddy Nagidi Venkata Lakshmi and Kokkonda Muthyam Reddy while traveling in the car bearing No.AP 23 R 3231 to Gajwel village from Shiridi, when they reached Chiragpally village on National Highway No.9 at about 4.00 A.M, the accident occurred due to collusion of opposite coming lorry bearing No.GJ 9V 3768 from Hyderabad side, due to which Sri Nalla Sanjeeva Reddy, Sri Nagidi Krishna Reddy and Smt.Nagidi Venkata Lakshmi died on the spot. The dependants of the deceased presented above three claim petitions and the Tribunal in its conclusions from evidence on record held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the insurer cannot be exonerated from liability and awarded compensation by allowing the claim petitions in part, as stated above, with interest at 8% p.a. 8. To prove their contentions, the claimants besides evidence of eye witness P.W-2 filed copies of Ex.A-1 F.I.R, Ex.A-2 Scene observation report, Ex.A-3 inquest, Ex.A-4 M.V.I report and respective Post mortem examination reports of the deceased covered by Ex.A-5; Ex.A-6 charge sheet, Ex.A-7=B-1 policy and proofs of income of the respective deceased. The claim petition 2nd respondent presented Ex.B-2=B-7 driving licence of driver of the lorry issued by the licensing authority showing that the same was expired and not renewed and the same was marked subject to objection before the Tribunal. The claim petition 2nd respondent presented Ex.B-2=B-7 driving licence of driver of the lorry issued by the licensing authority showing that the same was expired and not renewed and the same was marked subject to objection before the Tribunal. The claim petition 2nd respondent (appellant herein) issued legal notices to the 1st respondent owner and also the driver on 14.02.2012 covered by Ex.B-3 to B-6 to produce the driving licence as on the date of accident, if any, which they did not comply and for no licence which is a breach substantial, even policy covers the risk the insurer cannot be made liable as per the evidence of R.W-1 employee of Insurer. 9. Now coming to decide whether the insurer can be exonerated from liability to indemnify the insured to the third party claimants concerned: i) No doubt in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Others ( AIR 2009 SC 208 =(2008)12SCC 701), the two judge bench of the Apex Court in this decision by referring to National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 =2004-ACJ-1) apart from other expressions in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai & Others (2006) 4 SCC 250 ) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan & Others (2004) 13 SCC 224 =2004-SAR(civil)-290) and IshwarChandra & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others (2007) 10 SCC 650 =2007(4) Scale 292) held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner, when the driver has no license to drive the crime vehicle. ii) In Ishwar Chandra (supra) it was held by the two judge bench that the driver’s licence when expired 30 days prior to the date of accident and no renewal application filed even by date of accident to say a renewal dates back to date of application, it is suffice to hold the driver has no valid licence as on date of accident. iii) In NIC Vs. Kusumrai (supra) it was held by the two judge benchthat, the vehicle was used as taxi (commercial) and the driver is required to hold appropriate licence but not having valid commercial vehicle licence and from that breach, the insurer is held entitled to rise the defence. iii) In NIC Vs. Kusumrai (supra) it was held by the two judge benchthat, the vehicle was used as taxi (commercial) and the driver is required to hold appropriate licence but not having valid commercial vehicle licence and from that breach, the insurer is held entitled to rise the defence. iv) In Sardarivs. Sushilkumar (2008(1)LS-SC-177) the facts show one Jageeru, Tonga driver on 10-2-85 met with accident when it colluded with tractor and he later was expired on 15-2-85 and the Insurance Company in the counter contended that the driver of the tractor did not hold valid and effective licence and there is no liability to indemnify. In the course of trial, the said tractor driver Sushil Kumar categorically deposed that he does not know how to drive a tractor as he never even tried to learn driving tractor, that he had not been possessing any licence to drive a tractor and he did not even apply for licence. It was therefrom, the Tribunal held that admittedly when the driver of crime tractor was not knowing to drive tractor and not even having any licence at all to drive, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify owner of the tractor. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the said finding of the tribunal when preferred by driver and owner of the tractor for no appeal by claimants. In that factual context it was observed in para 6 of the judgment by the Supreme Court that, time and again made distinction between cases where III party is involved Vis-à-vis owner of the vehicle was involved. The object of Sections 147 & 149 of the MV Act enacted was social justice doctrine envisaged in the preamble of the constitution, however, the Act itself provides where the insurance company can avoid its liability. The avoidance of such liability by insurer largely depends upon violation of conditions of the Insurance Contract. Where the breach is ex-facie apparent from the record, court need not fasten liability on the insurer. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening liability on insured, may direct the insurer to pay to the claimants and recover the same from the insured. v) In UIIC Vs. Gianchand (1997)7 SCC-558), it was observed that when the insured handed over the vehicle to an un-licenced driver, insurer would be exonerated from liability to meet III party claims. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening liability on insured, may direct the insurer to pay to the claimants and recover the same from the insured. v) In UIIC Vs. Gianchand (1997)7 SCC-558), it was observed that when the insured handed over the vehicle to an un-licenced driver, insurer would be exonerated from liability to meet III party claims. vi) In Swaran Singh (three judges bench-supra) it was laid down that the owner of the vehicle has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who doesn’t satisfy Sections 3 & 4 of the MV Act. In a case where the driver admittedly did not hold licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person insurer in its defence succeed to avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to driver had a licence or owner committed a breach of the policy terms by consciously allowing a person to drive without having a valid driving licence. vii) In NIAC Vs. Prabhulal (2007)13 SCC 246 ) it was a claim arisen out of Consumer District Forum holding no liability of the insurer against the National Consumer Commission’s verdict fixing responsibility. viii) In PremKumari Vs. Prahlad Dev ( 2008(1) Scale 531 ) it was also observed that owner of the vehicle cannot contend no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver possessed a valid licence or not. ix) In OIC Vs. Prudhviraj ( 2008(1) Scale 727 ) on facts from the RTA record shows the driver was not having any driving licence for the owner to permit the driver to drive the vehicle and for that accident not chosen to make liable the insurer. x) By referring all these expressions at Para 9 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Saradari (supra), the Apex Court did not choose to interfere with the finding of the tribunal confirmed by the High Court, in not chosen to make liable the insurer. xi) In SurinaDurvasulu Vs. x) By referring all these expressions at Para 9 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Saradari (supra), the Apex Court did not choose to interfere with the finding of the tribunal confirmed by the High Court, in not chosen to make liable the insurer. xi) In SurinaDurvasulu Vs. Bhavanarayana Murthy (2008 ACJ 654) Para 14 it was held that when the driver had no valid driving licence to drive tractor and the charge sheet also mentions a penal provision for violation of the same in driving with no licence and nothing deposed by owner despite contention of Insurance Company, that he has taken all necessary precautions to entrust the vehicle to a person who had valid driving licence, insurance company not made liable holds good. xii) It is clear from the decisions that once there is material to say conscious knowledge of owner of defective or no licence of driver, insurer cannot be made liable. In fact, the three judges bench judgment of the Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra) well laid down the law in this regard referring to United Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Lehru (JT-2003(2)SC-595=2003-ACJ-611=2003-ACT–611(SC) among others and the principle laid down therein was approved and reiterated even in the subsequent decisions including the above but for distinguishing for the facts on hand in each of the cases as held by the Apex Court in NIC Vs. Geetabhat (2008-ACJ-1498) that the principle is the same but for any deviation from factual matrix of each case if at all to say non-liability. xiii) The Apex court in Lehru (supra), Swaran Singh (supra), Nanjappan (supra), Geetabhat (supra) and several other expressions in the cases relating to no license at all or imperfect and no valid license held that even it is one of breach of terms of policy and violation of rules, since the policy otherwise covers risk, though denied liability from no valid license, in the absence of showing such violation is to the conscious knowledge of insured-owner, insurer is to pay and recover. xiv) Even in Geetabhat (supra) it was held reiterating the principle laid down in the above decisions after referring the above among other several decisions that when insurer seeks to avoid liability on ground of fake or no licence of driver of the vehicle of the insurer, but for saying no licence issued by RTO in name of the driver, even taken alleged licence as fake, insurer has to pay to the third party claimants and recover from insured. xv) In fact, in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that it is the obligation on the part of owner to take equitable care to see that the driver had an appropriate license to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of owner vis-à-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid license concerned, at para-89, it was observed that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of this Section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a license for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. xvi) Furthermore, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan & Others ( AIR 2007 SC 1971 ) while holding that insurance company has no liability, however, invoked Article 142 and 136 of the Constitution in directing the insurer to pay first and recover from the tractor owner. It was in fact on a close reading discloses not a mere case of exercise of exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court from the fact that it contains the general observation that interest of justice would be sub-served in giving such a direction to pay and recover having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the MV Act, 1988. xvii) In another judgment of two judges bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. xvii) In another judgment of two judges bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni & Another (Appeal (Civil) C.C.No. 10993 of 2009), the Apex Court doubted the correctness of the directions issued in various judgments to the insurer to pay even though not liable and therefrom formulated issues for consideration by a larger bench xviii) In fact, by referring to the above expression in Swaran Singh's case (supra), this Court in an appeal by insurance company, observed in New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati, Vs. G.Sampoorna & Others ( 2010 (5) ALT 105 ) from paras-6 onwards that insurer raised the contention of driver was not having valid license at the time of accident and examined employee of Regional Transport Office, besides employee of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle did not speak anything. No evidence produced by claimants to show that there was a license or it was even if lapsed renewed later. However, the Tribunal held that even in the absence of driving license, insurance company has to pay and recover rather than escaping from liability for the claimants are not parties to the contract of insurance of the vehicle between insurer and insured. xix) Therefrom held (in Sampoorna (supra) that the conclusion is not acceptable from reading of Section 149(2)(a) r/w Section 3 of the Act and by referring to Vidhyadhar Mahariwala' case (supra) in saying the statute itself excludes insurer's liability in such a case, thereby the fact whether the claimant being a third party is not a privy to the policy between insurer and insured has no relevance. It is however, by referring to the Swaran Singh (supra) apart from the earlier expressions referred therein, observed that the proposition laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) is referred to a larger bench and it is still pending. It is however, by referring to the Swaran Singh (supra) apart from the earlier expressions referred therein, observed that the proposition laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) is referred to a larger bench and it is still pending. In Swaran Singh (supra) it was held that the Tribunals and the Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction to issue any direction for pay and recovery, consider, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the award amount from owner or driver, as the case may be, in execution of the same award in view of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. xx) It is (in Sampoorna-supra) from para-13 onwards observed that "In my opinion from the afore-extracted passage of the judgment, it is evident that direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation does not automatically follow in every case where the insurance company is found not liable. The same depends upon the fats and circumstances of each case. In all the aforementioned cases, which were referred to by the Supreme Court, directions were given on the facts of each case and considered the fact that the provisions of the Act dealing with insurance and payment of compensation are beneficial in nature". In paragraph 81 of Swaran Singh (supra), it was observed that right to avoid liability in terms of Section 149(2) is restricted as has been discussed herein before. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence; but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading. xxi) The Supreme Court in subsequent judgments have not treated the previous judgments including Swaran Singh (supra) as laying down unexceptionable principle that in every claim brought before the Tribunal, the insurance company should be directed to pay compensation amount first even though its defence was found accepted, as evident from some of the later expressions like in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & Others (2005 (4) ACJ 721). xxii) By referring to the above, from paragraph 20, (in Sampoorna supra) observed that on the strength of the discussion undertaken above, it is not possible for this Court to treat the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) as containing mandatory directions to Tribunals and Courts to invariably direct the insurer to pay at first instance and recover from owner of the vehicle even though they are held not liable. Pending resolution of the issues by the larger bench of the Supreme Court, it would be reasonable to understand the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) as leaving discretion to the Tribunals and the Courts to give appropriate directions depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. xxiii) By applying the ratio in Swaran Singh (supra) at para-21 (in sampoorna supra) held that some amount that was already deposited by the insurance company, which holds good to withdraw, and for the rest, insurance company is not liable. 10. In fact besides Lehru (supra), Swaran Singh’s (supra) and Nanjappan (supra) in holding that from lack of license or fake license or imperfect or defective license, in the absence of proof of conscious knowledge of owner, the insurer can be ordered firstly to satisfy the claimants by indemnifying the owner and then recover from owner and driver; i) Even in the subsequent expressions of the Apex Court in Kusumlathaand others V. Satbir and Others ( AIR 2011 SC 1234 = 2011 (2) SCJ 639) it was held that the Tribunal has got inherent power to issue such directions to insurer to pay and recover. ii) Even in the latest expression of the Apex Court in S.IyyappanVs. ii) Even in the latest expression of the Apex Court in S.IyyappanVs. United India Insurance Company (2013)7 SCC 62 ) a two judge bench of the Apex Court held that even though the insurer has taken the defence that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding from liability, from the driver is not duly licenced in during the crime vehicle when met with accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of amount paid to third party in case there was any breach of condition of Insurance policy. 11. From the above legal principles and in the factual matrix of the case, the evidence of R.W-1 employee of the insurer of the vehicle is that as per Ex.B-2 copy of driving licence of the driver of the crime vehicle, the licence which was issued by the licensing authority Junagad, Gujarat is a non-transport driving licence with effect from 02.08.1991 till 30.03.2009 to say by the date of accident on 18.08.2010, the driver got valid non-transport driving licence. The vehicle (lorry) is a transport (goods carriage) vehicle and earlier from 18.05.1994 to 17.05.1997 there was a valid transport driving license to drive the vehicle by the driver and later on there was no renewal or fresh transport driving licence obtained in the factual matrix. The insurer issued Ex.B-3 and Ex.B-5 registered notices to the owner and driver to furnish the particulars and covered by Ex.B-4 and B-6 registered post receipts and it is not the case of no notice received by owner and driver, apart from presumption of due service of the notice sent by registered post to address of owner furnished in the Ex.B-1 policy and therefrom to say, but for no valid licence, the owner and driver could have produced or furnished to draw the adverse-inference. When prima facie it is proved by owner and even for marking Ex.b-2 the claimants raised objection, when it is the document obtained from R.T.A and no contra evidence produced even burden shifted on owner and if at all by claim by claimants on behalf of owner to rebut and Ex.B-7 also proves Ex.b-2, suffice to say it is proved of the driver has no valid and existing driving licence. It is even to say the driver earlier was having transport and non-transport driving licence which requires renewal not done, cannot presume competency without renewal to say non affected any, later disqualification. Thus, suffice to say insurer proved the contention and the tribunal went wrong in saying still not proved. Further, breach is a breach and the tribunal also went wrong in its finding in this regard contra to above. However, there is nothing to say owner willfully and intentionally allowed the claim so as fundamental. Thus it is a fit case for pay and recover including from the above expressions of the Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra), Lehru (supra), Nanjappan (supra), Kusumlata (supra) and S.Iyyappan (supra). 12. Having regard to the above, it is the insurer also along with the insured owner of the crime vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then it is for the insurer to pay to the claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition in the same award without need of any separate proceedings. POINT NO.2: 13. Coming to the contention of negligence of car driver only or negligence of drivers of both vehicles concerned, Ex.A-1 F.I.R is first version document of the case shows Cr.No.51/2010 dated 18.08.2010 occurrence (accident) at 04.00 hours and information received at 06.00 hrs of accident at Chiragpalli on N.H-9 at 1 km away West from police station and P.W-2-k.Muthyam Reddy (shows owner of the car) was the informant of the accident resulted the three deaths including of the car driver in saying opposite coming lorry driver dashed the car and the car front right side badly damaged. The Ex.A-2 scene observation report and sketch speak that the car driver sustained frontal head injury and died, Krishna Reddy nostril bone broken and incised wound to frontal area of face died and Venkata Lakshmi also sustained frontal head injury died. Inquest and post mortem examination reports also show to support it. It shows the two sat at front seat besides driver seat and one of them at right side of back seat. The car front right portion, Engine, front right door damaged and front portion of car also damaged besides front and back right side wheel disk and tires. Coming to damage of lorry concerned, its right side front mudguard near diesel tank damaged. The car front right portion, Engine, front right door damaged and front portion of car also damaged besides front and back right side wheel disk and tires. Coming to damage of lorry concerned, its right side front mudguard near diesel tank damaged. Very rear to place of accident there is a culvert. M.V.I report no way shows examination of car and not even speaks any damage to the lorry, either to say not inspected the damage or no damage. Even for not noted the damage, from all the above it proves that the accident was of not sheer negligence of lorry driver, but also of car driver and the same even pleaded and suggested,Tribunal not properly appreciated the oral, documentary and the circumstantial evidence, even from what it considered from paras 8 to 11 on issue Nos.1 and 2. The condition of the road is N.H-9 is good and sufficiently wide and the lorry came in wrong side is not at all the case including from P.W-2 evidence (who is owner of the car). No doubt size of the vehicle is also criterion in fixing contributory negligence proportion. Having regard to above facts atleast 25% contributory negligence if not more safely can be fixed (though it is the contention of Insurer of lorry of equal contribution in the facts) on the car driver and to fix remaining on the lorry driver. 14. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James (1965(1) A11. E.R-563), it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what compensation would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charlered House Credit v. Tolly (1963(2) All.E.R-432) remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver (1969(1)A11.E.R –555) observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but noother process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995 ACJ 366(SC) at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. 15. 15. In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 ACJ 1403=(4)ALT-35(SC) at paras-1 and 7 referring to the earlier expressions in SarlaVerma v Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) and Nagappav Gurudayal Singh (2003 ACJ 12) that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up under Section 166 of the Act. The expression ‘just compensation’ has been explained in SarlaVerma’s case (cited supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. ‘Just compensation’ is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. 16. ‘Just compensation’ is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. 16. From above legal position, coming to facts: (A) In O.P. No.141 of 2010 (M.A.C.M.A No.204 of 2013) the four claimants are wife, mother, major unmarried daughter and major son of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 48 years as per Ex.A-8 pan card and the multiplier 13 applies as per SarlaVerma (supra) and even taken his earnings at Rs.5,000/- p.m. as arrived by the Tribunal and 2nd claimant not shown as dependant and even taken 1/4th for personal expenses as arrived by the Tribunal, only 1/3rd if 2nd claimant is not dependant, it comes to Rs.5,85,000/-(5,000 x 3/4 x 12 x 13) besides Rs.80,000/- even awarded to 1st claimant as consortium from her age and age of deceased and they got 2 major children in family life and Rs.25,000/- towards funereal expenses and Rs.10,000/- maximum towards loss of estate, it comes to Rs.7,00,000/- and 75% therein for contributory negligence of lorry driver to indemnify for its owner by insurer, (for remaining 25% the claimants to claim from car owner and insurer) it comes to Rs.5,25,000/-to reduce from Rs.6,05,000/-; (B) In O.P. No.154 and 153 of 2010 for death of N.Kista Reddy and his wife Venkata Lakshmi for the two claims by mother of Kista Reddy and major daughter of 23 years old (unmarried) and about 17 years old minor son of Kista Reddy; the daughter’s age when mentioned 23 years in claim petition, to say Venkata Lakshmi (mother) age above 40 years therefrom so also Kista Reddy (father) nearly 45-46; then multiplier 15 for Venkata Lakshmi and 14 for Kista Reddy that applies and rather Rs.4,000/- per month, the earnings of Kista Reddy even taken at Rs.4,500/-p.m; if 1/3rd deducted for 3 dependants on him it comes to Rs.3,000/- p.m. and Rs.3,000 x 12 x 14 = Rs.5,04,000/- and Rs.25,000/- funereal expenses and Rs.5,000/- as loss of estate, it comes to Rs.5,34,000/- and 75% thereon comes to Rs.4,00,500/- to reduce from Rs.5,00,000/- and so far as deceased Venkata Lakshmi taken as Tribunal Rs.36,000/-p.a. the deduction for personal expenses is half and not 1/3rd even as per SarlaVerma (supra) paras 27-32 for mother-in-law not dependant, but for daughter and son at best and thus Rs.18,000/-x15 = Rs.2,70,000/- apart from Rs.25,000/- towards funereal expenses and Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate, it comes to Rs.3,00,000/- and 75% therein is Rs.2,25,000/- to reduce from Rs.3,80,000/-. 17. Coming to the rate of interest, from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya (2005)6 SCC 236 ), Sarla Varma (supra) and Rajesh (supra) that from the steep fall in the bank interest rate since past several years 7.5% p.a. interest is reasonable and the appellate Court also got the discretionary power to award reasonable rate of interest by modification of what the Tribunal awarded and from the drastic fall in bank rate of interestin bank rate as laid down by the Apex Court in DDA Vs. Joginder S. Monga (2004) 2SCC-297) and thus under Section 171 of the MVAct interest is awarded at 7.5% per annum from date of claim petition till realization by reducing from 8% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT-3: 18. Accordingly and in the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed by fixing contributory negligence liability of 75% on the owner to indemnify the insurer of the lorry (appellant-R2) and by reducing the compensation from (i) Rs.6,05,000/- to Rs.5,25,000/-, (ii) Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs.4,00,000/- and (iii) Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.2,25,000/-in O.P Nos.141 of 2010, 154 of 2010 and 153 of 2010 respectively while reducing the rate of interest from 8% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. from the date of respective claim petitions till the date of realization with joint and several liability of the insurer and insured (respondents 1 and 2) to pay by the insurer (appellant) and then to recover from the insured. The respondents 1 and 2 of the claim petitions shall deposit said amount within one month, failing which the respective claimants can execute and recover. It is made clear from the settled expressions of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. The respondents 1 and 2 of the claim petitions shall deposit said amount within one month, failing which the respective claimants can execute and recover. It is made clear from the settled expressions of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. Lehru (supra) & Nanjappan (supra) that the insurer is entitled, while depositing the amount payable (if not deposited or paid any amount so far to deposit the balance) to approach the Tribunal to direct the RTA concerned not to register any transfer of the crime vehicle and to seek for attachment of the crime vehicle or other property of the insured as an assurance for execution and recovery in the same proceedings or under revenue recovery as per the MV Act, 1988 and also ask the Tribunal not to disburse the deposited amount to claimants (but for to invest in a bank) till such attachment order is made and made absolute from appearance and hearing. However, after the same, the Tribunal shall not withhold the amount of the claimants, if there is any necessity to permit for any withdrawal but for to invest the balance in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Rest of the terms of the award of the Tribunal holds good. There is no order as to costs in all three appeals. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.