JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 11th February, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 14-NL/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Shinder Kaur and others versus Kamal Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,70,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the amount awarded is excessive. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurer argued that the rate of interest and the amount awarded under all the heads is not in accordance with the law, rather is a bounty, be set aside and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy read with the mandate of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that though the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement, but the amount awarded is meagre, rather inadequate and the Tribunal has also not applied the multiplier as per the law applicable. 6. In order to determine all these issues, it is necessary to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the case in hand: 7. The claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the grounds taken in the claim petition. 8. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 9. The claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the grounds taken in the claim petition. 8. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the death of Sat Pal was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2 of the offending vehicle, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof? OPP 3. Whether the respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation if awarded and that is to be indemnified by the respondent No. 3? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle at the time of the accident was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so the effect thereof? OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. If so the effect thereof? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 10. The claimants examined Dr. Puneet Sharma as PW1, Shri Hardev Kumar as PW3, Shri Krishan Dayal as PW4, HC Mansa Ram as PW5 and one of the claimants, Smt. Shinder Kaur herself appeared in the witness box as PW2 in support of their claim. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not examined any witness. The appellant-insurer examined Shri Kuldeep Singh, Clerk, DTO Hoshiarpur as RW1. Issue No. 1: 11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that respondent No. 2-driver, namely Gurdev Singh, has driven the Tempo, bearing registration No. HP-640-143, rashly and negligently on 15th October, 2007 near Agro Factory, Rajpura and caused the accident in which deceased-Sat Pal sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 12. The said issue is not in dispute. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimants have proved the said issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 13. Before dealing with issues No. 2 and 3, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 4 and 5. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimants have proved the said issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 13. Before dealing with issues No. 2 and 3, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 4 and 5. Issue No. 4: 14. It was for the insurer to prove that the owner-insured has committed willful breach in terms of the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the MV Act, has not led any evidence to this effect. The insurance policy is on the record as Ext. RW-1/C which was valid and effective at the time of the accident, details of which are given in para 14 of the impugned award. 15. The insurer has examined Kuldeep Singh, Clerk, DTO Hoshiarpur as RW1, has proved the entries regarding renewal of the driving licence. He has not deposed that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any breach, not to speak of willful breach. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 16. It was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time, has failed to do so. The perusal of the record does disclose that the driving licence was issued for 'LTV' and was thereafter renewed for 'LMV'. Meaning thereby, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle. 17. The unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 2590, as is evident from the Certificate of Registration, Ext. RW-1/B, thus, falls within the definition of 'LMV'. 18. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion. Accordingly, it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the relevant point of time. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issues No. 2 and 3: 19. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from saw mill and Rs. 3,000/- per month from growing the vegetables, but have failed to prove the income relating to the vegetables. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issues No. 2 and 3: 19. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from saw mill and Rs. 3,000/- per month from growing the vegetables, but have failed to prove the income relating to the vegetables. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the claimants have proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. After making one third deductions towards his personal expenses, held that the claimants have lost source of income to the extent of two third of the monthly income of the deceased. The assessment made is quite legal, needs no interference. 20. But, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of 12'. It is pleaded that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident and has also been held by the Tribunal, which has not been disputed by the appellant-insurer or the driver and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle. 21. Viewed thus, the multiplier of 14' was to be applied 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, read with the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act. 22. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding Rs. 50,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', Rs. 50,000/- under the head 'love and affection' and Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'last rites'. 23. The Tribunal has also committed a legal mistake while awarding interest @ 12% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 24. 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. 24. 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 ; Santosh 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. 25. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 26. The question is - whether the Tribunal or Appellate Court is/are within its/their jurisdiction to grant more compensation than what is claimed? 27. 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 for the following reasons: 28. 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. It is apt to reproduce paras 41 to 45 of the judgment herein: "41. It is apt to reproduce paras 41 to 45 of the judgment herein: "41. Before I determine what is the just and adequate compensation in the case in hand, it is also a moot question – whether the Appellate Court can enhance compensation, even though, not prayed by the medium of appeal or by cross-objection. 42. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “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. 43. 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 sub-section (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. 44. Keeping in view the purpose and object of the said provisions read with the mandate of Section 173 of the MV Act, I am of the view that the Appellate Court is exercising the same powers, which the Tribunal is having. 44. Keeping in view the purpose and object of the said provisions read with the mandate of Section 173 of the MV Act, I am of the view that the Appellate Court is exercising the same powers, which the Tribunal is having. Also, sub-clause (2) of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) mandates that the Appellate Court is having all those powers, which the trial Court is having. It is apt to reproduce Section 107 sub-clause (2) of the CPC herein: “107. Powers of Appellate Court. – ................................. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.” 45. Thus, in the given circumstances, the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court is within the jurisdiction to enhance the compensation." 29. 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.” 30. 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. 31. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 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.” 33. 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. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants.” 34. 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.” 34. The Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Smt. Savita versus Bindar Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053, has laid down the same proposition of law and held that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court can ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment herein: "6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation." 35. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 6666/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 11,19,888/- under the head 'loss of income'. 36. The claimants are also awarded Rs. 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love and affection', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. 37. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,19,888/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 11,19,888/- under the head 'loss of income'. 36. The claimants are also awarded Rs. 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love and affection', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. 37. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,19,888/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 11,59,888/-, i.e. Rs. 11,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 38. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 39. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 40. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 41. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.