JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.3.2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 50/2009, titled Smt. Kalawati and others versus Tirath Ram and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,99,000/- alongwith 7% interest came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the amount awarded is inadequate and the Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, in terms of the mandate laid down in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 4. Following points arise for consideration and determination in this appeal. (i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? (ii) Whether the amount awarded is inadequate? 5. The claimants, who are widow, mother and minor children of late Shri Sohan Lal, being the victims of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the insurer. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte. 6. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 4.6.2010: (i) Whether Sohan Lal son of Dile Ram died in a roadside motor vehicle accident on 19.8.2009 near Malana due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving tractor NO. HP34A- 5835? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount the petitioner is entitled for compensation and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the driver of the vehicle No. HP34A-5835 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, its effect? OPR-3. HP34A- 5835? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount the petitioner is entitled for compensation and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the driver of the vehicle No. HP34A-5835 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, its effect? OPR-3. (iv) Whether petition is not maintainable because the deceased Sohan Lal was driving the tractor No. HP34A-5835 at the time of accident, If so, its effect? OPR-3. (v) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of Motor Vehicles Act and also in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, its effect? OPR-3. (vi) Relief. 7. Parties have led evidence. Claimants have examined five witnesses, including claimant No. 1 herself. On the other hand, respondents have examined two witnesses. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that respondent No. 1 Tirath Ram, driver of the offending tractor No. HP34-A-5835 had driven the tractor rashly and negligently on 19.8.2009, near Malana. 9. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the accident was not caused by respondent No. 1 Tirath Ram but was caused by Sohan Lal deceased himself. The Tribunal has discussed the pleadings and evidence led by the claimants. PW3 Param Dev has specifically stated that the vehicle was being driven by Tirath Ram rashly and negligently and was not shattered in any way during his cross-examination. Other witnesses have also supported his version. Thus, prima facie, it can be said that Tirath Ram has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and findings recoded by the Tribunal are illegal. 10. The learned counsel for the insurer has tried to carve out a case in terms of Rapat/Rojanamcha which, on the face of it, is against the insurer and does not contain who was driving the tractor. Investigating Officer Yash Pal Thakur has deposed that he has received telephonic information that accident has occurred as the tractor had rolled down. It was pitch dark and next day they have found the body of Sohan Lal. He has nowhere deposed that the said tractor was being driven by Sohan Lal and not by Tirath Ram. After receiving the telephonic information, he went to the spot alongwith constables Anil Kumar and Narinder Kumar. Both of them have not been examined by the insurer. He has nowhere deposed that the said tractor was being driven by Sohan Lal and not by Tirath Ram. After receiving the telephonic information, he went to the spot alongwith constables Anil Kumar and Narinder Kumar. Both of them have not been examined by the insurer. I.O. has stated that he has completed the investigation and he has not seized the driving licence and registration certificate. 11. The grant of compensation is a social legislation for the benefit of the victims of the vehicular accident. 12. The mandate of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, provides for the grant of compensation to the victim without succumbing to the niceties and technicalities of procedure. It is beaten law of the land that technicalities or procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play. 13. My this view is fortified by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646 , N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81. 14. This Court has also laid down the similar principles of law in FAO No. 692 of 2008 decided on 4.9.2015 titled Cholamandlan MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Jamna Devi and others, FAO No. 287 of 2014 along with connected matter, decided on 18.9.2015 titled Tulsi Ram versus Smt. Mena Devi and others, FAO No. 72 of 2008 along with connected matter decided on 10.7.2015 titled Anil Kumar versus Nitim Kumar and others and FAO No. 174 of 2013, titled Kusum Kumari versus M.D. U.P Roadways and others, decided on 5.9.2014. 15. While keeping in view the pleadings, averments contained in the claim petition read with statements made by the witnesses, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimants have proved that the driver of the offending tractor Tirath Ram has driven the offending tractor rashly and negligently. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 12 to 15 of the impugned award, need no interference. 16. Having said so, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 17. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 12 to 15 of the impugned award, need no interference. 16. Having said so, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 17. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5 at the first instance. The Driving licence Ext. PW2/A is on record. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has failed to do so. A bare perusal of driving licence does disclose that Tirath Ram was competent to drive light motor vehicle. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 18. Issue No.4. In view of the findings returned on issue No.1, the findings returned on this issue are accordingly answered. 19. It is apt to record herein that the Tribunal has made discussions in para 22 of the impugned award, are well reasoned, need no interference. 20. Issue No.5. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that owner has committed willful breach, in order to seek exoneration. The apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531 has laid down the test how the owner can be said to have committed willful breach in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” read with the insurance policy. But it is not the case here. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein:- “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.” Applying the test the insurer has failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 21. Issue No.2. Learned counsel for the insurer has not questioned the adequacy of compensation. The question is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise and whether the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd in view of Sarla Verma’s case referred to supra. 22. Thus, it can be safely held that the amount awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under various heads. But the question is whether the court has power to grant and enhance the compensation without filing the appeal or cross objections. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 23. 22. Thus, it can be safely held that the amount awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under various heads. But the question is whether the court has power to grant and enhance the compensation without filing the appeal or cross objections. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 23. Keeping in view the object of granting of compensation and the legislature's wisdom read with the amendment made in the MV Act in the year 1994, it is for the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to assess the just compensation and is within its powers to grant the compensation more than what is claimed and can enhance the same. 24. This Court in a case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 174, held that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court is/are within the jurisdiction to enhance the compensation and grant more than what is claimed. 25. The same view was taken by 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. 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.” 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 sub-section (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.” 26. In the case titled as State of Haryana and another versus Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3696, the Apex Court has discussed the expression 'just'. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein:- "7. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” 26. In the case titled as State of Haryana and another versus Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3696, the Apex Court has discussed the expression 'just'. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein:- "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in S. 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 )" 27. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in a case titled as The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. versus Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172. 28. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 )" 27. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in a case titled as The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. versus Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172. 28. 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. 29. The Apex Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Mohd. Nasir & Anr., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717, laid down the same principle while discussing, in para 27 of the judgment, the ratio laid down in the judgments rendered in the cases titled as Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 274 ; Devki Nandan Bangur and Ors. versus State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 ACJ 1288; Syed Basheer Ahmed & Ors. versus Mohd. Jameel & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 225 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 ; Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. versus Zora Singh and Others (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; A.P. SRTC versus STAT and State of Haryana & Ors. versus Shakuntla Devi, 2008 (13) SCALE 621 . 30. Having said so, this Court has power to grant compensation or enhance the same even if the same is not prayed by the claimant. 31. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month, though is on meager side but the said findings have not been questioned. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Claimants are five in number and 1/4th was to be deducted in view of Sarla Verma’s case supra. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2250/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the age of deceased 32 years in view of the postmortem report and applied the multiplier of “16” which is legally correct. 32. The claimants are entitled to Rs.2250x12x16= Rs. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2250/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the age of deceased 32 years in view of the postmortem report and applied the multiplier of “16” which is legally correct. 32. The claimants are entitled to Rs.2250x12x16= Rs. 4,32,000/- The claimants are also held entitled to compensation under the four heads as under:- (i) loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.40,000/- 33. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,72,000/-. 34. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% per annum. 35. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Satosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014, AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 36. Having said so, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,72,000/- alongwith interest at rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 37. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, within six weeks from today before this Registry. On deposit, the entire amount be released to the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts. 38. 37. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, within six weeks from today before this Registry. On deposit, the entire amount be released to the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts. 38. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified and the compensation is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. 39. The appeal is disposed of. 40. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.