JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 in O.P. No.753 of 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellants preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,22,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty two thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization fixing liability on respondent No.3 alone, legal heir of deceased respondent No.1 - owner of lorry bearing registration No.AP 10T 3168 by exonerating liability against respondent No.2 - Insurer. 3. Heard Mr. T. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurer. Despite service of notice on respondent No.3, none appears. 4. The Tribunal has exonerated respondent No.2 - Insurer from its liability and fixed the liability only on the legal heir of deceased respondent No.1 - owner of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AP 10T 3168. The Tribunal gave finding that there was no valid insurance coverage to the crime vehicle and, as such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation to the appellants and that they are entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, respondent No.1 being owner of the crime vehicle since died, his wife as his legal representative was brought on record and accordingly the Tribunal directed her to pay the compensation. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said finding of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 6. On the analysis of the entire evidence on record including depositions of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A3 - MVI report, A5 - charge sheet and other documents, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 10T 3168 belongs to deceased respondent No.1. Admittedly, respondent No.3 being legal representative of the deceased owner of the crime vehicle did not file any appeal challenging the said finding and thus the same attainted finality. However, the appellants preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the finding in dismissing the appeal against respondent No.2 - Insurer. 7. Admittedly, respondent No.3 being legal representative of the deceased owner of the crime vehicle did not file any appeal challenging the said finding and thus the same attainted finality. However, the appellants preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the finding in dismissing the appeal against respondent No.2 - Insurer. 7. On perusal of the entire record including the claim petition filed by the appellants would show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 10T 3168. Respondent No.2 - Insurer filed its counter before the Tribunal disputing the very coverage of insurance and its liability. Appellant No.1 was examined herself as PW.1, and also examined the Motor Vehicles Inspector as PW.2 and Regional Transport Officer, South Zone, Bahadurpur, Hyderabad as PW.3. They have also exhibited documents as A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR, Ex.A3 is the attested copy of MVI report, Ex.A5 is the copy of charge sheet andEx.A11 is the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.182 of 1994 on the file of the Addl. District Munsif Court, Bhongir. That apart, attested copy of Form 24 was also exhibited as Ex.X1. On the other hand, respondent No.2 - Insurer examined its Senior Assistant as RW.1 and exhibited Premium Register and relevant entry therein as Exs.B2 and B3 respectively apart from the authorization letter authorizing him to give evidence as Ex.B1. 8. It is the specific contention of the appellants that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle No.AP 10T 3168 belongs to the deceased respondent No.1. According to them, the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurer. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that particulars of the insurance policy were furnished and they have also examined PW.2 - MVI and PW.3 - RTO. By referring the same, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of cover note by their company, burden is on the Insurer to produce the cover note, but they failed to do so. By referring the same, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of cover note by their company, burden is on the Insurer to produce the cover note, but they failed to do so. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants filed I.A.No.1318 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondent to produce cover note and despite the orders, respondent No.2 did not file it on the ground that those documents were destroyed and, therefore, adverse inference could be drawn against the Insurer. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, as per the deposition of PW.2, the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Anga Chinni Babu, 1992 ACJ 281 wherein it was held that when the claimants produced the information with regard to particulars of lorry, insurance policy etc., it is for the Insurer to produce copy of policy and other documents. It is also held that whenever the claimants have produced or given the particulars of the policy with a branch which has been entered into the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the burden shifts on the insurance company to show that number does not relate to this vehicle or that number was not available or that number was never issued at all. Despite giving particulars, if the Insurance Company fails to produce the same, an adverse inference can be drawn against it. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon another judgment rendered by a Division Bench of erstwhile common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Imran Basha v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 1 ALT 641 (D.B.) wherein it was held that the Insurance Company on receipt of notice in O.P. from the Tribunal, it must be clear on its stand with regard to coverage, accident and liability etc., The Division Bench further held that the Act was suitably amended to strengthen the social security measure of insurance to protect the interests of victims of accidents and approach in this behalf must be to advance the intention of the Legislature. If any doubt exists in this behalf, it must be read in favour of the person for whose benefits the provisions are made. At any rate, the law permits an insurance company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the event of there being any defect in the policy or the liability having been improperly fastened upon the insurance company. 11. By referring the said judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the Insurer and fixing liability only on respondent No.3, owner of the crime vehicle. According to him, the Tribunal has also not awarded just and fair compensation as per law by taking the age of the deceased, multiplier, deductions and future prospects into account and also the principle held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 18 SCC 130 With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the claimants prayed, to allow the appeal granting just and reasonable compensation by fixing liability on respondent No.2 - Insurer. 12. It is relevant to note that respondent No.3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 13. Supporting the judgment, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurer would contend that admittedly, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 10T 3168, and the said vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2 - Insurer. According to him, on receipt of notice in the O.P., the Insurance Company verified its records and came to know that the said crime vehicle was not covered with it. The claimants did not file any documents to show that policy cover No.105305 was issued in respect of the crime vehicle and it is for the claimants or owner of the crime vehicle to prove that the said vehicle is having valid subsisting insurance policy as on the date of accident. The claimants did not show any satisfactory evidence to that effect. On the other hand, on verification of entire records, the crime vehicle No.AP 10T 3168 was not covered with respondent No.2 - Insurer. The claimants did not show any satisfactory evidence to that effect. On the other hand, on verification of entire records, the crime vehicle No.AP 10T 3168 was not covered with respondent No.2 - Insurer. It further contended that the Tribunal on the analysis of the entire evidence, more particularly, depositions of PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and also Exs.A1, A3, A5, A11, Ex.X1 and Exs.B2 and B3, gave a specific finding that the claimants failed to establish that the above crime vehicle was covered with Insurer. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, there is no error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. With the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. On perusal of the entire record, both oral and documentary and also the finding of the Tribunal, it is not in dispute that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry No.AP 10T 3168 belongs to deceased respondent No.1. 15. Thus, the issue that arises for consideration by this Court is, whether the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurer and its liability? 16. In Ex.A1 - attested copy of FIR, the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. The police, on completion of investigation, filed Ex.A5 - charge sheet, wherein also the police mentioned the number of vehicle as AP 10T 3168. It is also relevant to note that Ex.A3 - MVI Report also discloses the fact that the crime vehicle is AP 10T 3168. PW.2 - MVI has specifically deposed the same. 17. On the other hand, the Insurer has examined its Senior Assistant as RW.1 and filed Ex.B2 - Premium Register and exhibited relevant entry therein as Ex.B3. It is also relevant to note that the claimants filed I.A. No.1318 of 2005 seeking direction to respondent No.2 - Insurer to produce the cover note etc. and the said IA was allowed by the Tribunal. But, respondent No.2 informed the Tribunal that as per their office norms, all cover note copies and related policy copies including proposal forms have to be destroyed after expiry of ten years by keeping only Premium Registers. Accordingly, the relevant documents for the cover note No.105305 have also been destroyed as per their norms. But, respondent No.2 informed the Tribunal that as per their office norms, all cover note copies and related policy copies including proposal forms have to be destroyed after expiry of ten years by keeping only Premium Registers. Accordingly, the relevant documents for the cover note No.105305 have also been destroyed as per their norms. Therefore, the Insurer contends that the original premium register has already filed and marked as Ex.B2 with relevant entry dated 07.12.1993 with regard to the policy cover note No.105305. RW.1, Senior Assistant of respondent No.2 has also deposed the same. 18. On perusal of the deposition of PW.3, R.T.O., Bahadurpur, South Zone, she has categorically deposed that as per the computer data, the vehicle bearing No.AP 10T 3186 stands in the name of A. Srinivas Reddy S/o Subbi Reddy, Class of Vehicle as 'Light Goods Vehicle', maker of the vehicle as 'Eicher Motors' and its first registration as 19.09.1989. Ex.X1 is the certified copy of Form No.24B. Whereas, as per deposition of PW.2 and Ex.A9 - certified copy of MVI report, the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 10T 3168 belongs to Mr. M. Maraiah (deceased respondent No.1) and it was insured with respondent No.2 with cover note No.MC/HRO-105305. RW.1, Senior Assistant of respondent No.2 deposed that respondent No.2 has verified all the particulars of the crime vehicle No.AP 10T 3168 and found that there is no policy with regard to the said crime vehicle. It is relevant to note that during cross-examination, RW.1 has stated thus: "It is true the cover note No.MC/HRO/105305 was issued from our branch. As per our records it was issued to the vehicle No. AP 10 T 3186. The said duplicate cover note was already destroyed as per our norms. After 10 years the policy copies are also shall be destroyed as per our office norms keeping the register of issuance of policy. Ex.B-2 is the internal (record) Premium Register about the issuance of policy. Ex.B-3 is the relevant entry dated: 7-12-1993 with regard to the policy cover note No.105305. It is true it is appears to the naked eye at the digit of 8' originally altered from 6' to 8'. We have not filed any authorization letter that all the records are destroyed after 10 years except the Ex.B-2 Premium Register showing the particulars of the policies issued from our branch. The owner of the said vehicle is M. MARAIAH. We have not filed any authorization letter that all the records are destroyed after 10 years except the Ex.B-2 Premium Register showing the particulars of the policies issued from our branch. The owner of the said vehicle is M. MARAIAH. It may be true that due to over sight in manual script in Ex.B-2 there is possibility of writing 3186 instead of 3168. As per our record AP 10 T 3186 is a heavy goods lorry. In some times we will not verify the R.C. before issuing the policies, the policies will be issued basing on utmost good faith. It is true that before issuing policies we will examine the motor vehicle and then only we will issue policies including the Engine Number and vehicle Number, and they will be noted in the proposal Form." Thus, it is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that the crime vehicle was not covered with respondent No.2. 19. It is also relevant to note that MVI, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District was examined as PW.2 and he deposed as under: "I am working as M.V.I. Attapur, Ranga Reddy District since 2002. Previously I worked as M.V.I. at Bhongir from 1993 to 1996. I received requisition from S.I. of Police Bibinagar on 25-3- 1994 to inspect the crime vehicle No. AP-10-T3168 goods vehicle. Accordingly, I inspected the vehicle on 26-3-1994 at P.S. Bhongir and found no damages on the vehicle. I verified all original documents pertains to the crime vehicle such as R.C. and Insurance cover note. As per my verification the vehicle bearing No.AP-10-T-3168 belongs to M. Maraiah R/o Ramanthapur. The said vehicle was insured with United Indian Insurance Company Ltd., with cover note No.MC/HRO-105305 valid up to 05-12-1994. I have also deposed as witness before Addl.J.F.C.M. Bhongir. Ex.A9 is M.V.I. Report issued by me it contains my signature. The crime vehicle make is Tata Model 1986, Type of body is open. It is a heavy goods vehicle." 20. As per Ex.A1, the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. Even in Ex.A5 - charge sheet also, the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. In Ex.A9 - Accident Report form of the M.V.I., the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. It is a heavy goods vehicle." 20. As per Ex.A1, the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. Even in Ex.A5 - charge sheet also, the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. In Ex.A9 - Accident Report form of the M.V.I., the crime vehicle number was mentioned as AP 10T 3168. In the said Ex.A9, MVI Report, particulars of the policy was mentioned as cover note No.MC/HRO No.105305, valid bup to 05.12.1994, company - United India Insurance Company Limited and owner of the vehicle as M. Maraiah and his address as 5-29, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. By relying on Ex.A9 - MVI report, wherein the cover-note number was mentioned, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that they have given particulars of the insurance policy details and despite the orders of the Tribunal in I.A. No.1318 of 2005, the Insurer did not produce the same. He would further contend that adverse inference can be drawn against respondent No.2 - Insurer and liability has to be fixed on it by relying upon the principle held by this Court in the above decisions. 21. On perusal of the Ex.B2 - Premium Register and Ex.B3 - relevant entry therein and also the deposition of RW.1, on verification of their records, cover note number MC/HRO-105305 was issued by their company in respect of vehicle No. AP 10T 3186, and duplicate cover note was already destroyed as per the norms of their company. It is his further deposition that after ten years, the policy copies shall also be destroyed as per their office norms by keeping Register of issuance of policy and, therefore, RW.1 has filed Ex.B2 internal premium register about issuance of policy and Ex.B3 is the relevant entry dated 07.12.1993 with regard to policy cover note No.105305. However, the learned counsel for the appellant by referring the crossexamination of RW.1 that it appears to the naked eye at the digit 8' originally altered from 6' to 8' and that it may be true that due to oversight in manual script in Ex.B2 there is possibility of writing 3186 instead of 3168, and as per their record, AP 10T 3186 is a heavy goods lorry, would contend that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from paying compensation and dismissed the claim against it is erroneously. But, as per the deposition of RW.1 and on perusal of Exs.B2 and B3, more particularly, the entry dated 07.12.1993 with policy cover note No.105305, the said cover note was issued from the office of respondent No.2 in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP 10T 3186. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that as per the company policy, they will destroy the policy after completion of ten (10) years. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the appellants failed to establish that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. On the other hand, respondent No.2 by examining RW.1 and producing Exs.B2 and B3 with the support of Ex.X1 - Form No.24 has established that respondent No.2 has not issued any policy in respect of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 10T 3168. 22. It is relevant to note that on critical analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary and also with regard to the above cross-examination of RW.1, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that alteration of 3rd digit 6' into 8' cannot be taken into consideration as 3186', because if at all the argument of the learned counsel claimants taken into consideration, the 4th digit in 3186 must be 8' but not as 6' and, therefore, in view of the specific evidence of RW.1, norms of respondent No.1 company with regard to destroying of duplicate cover-note that it has not issued any policy to the offending vehicle No.AP 10T 3168. This Court is satisfied with the said reasoning. Thus, there is no error that warrants interference by this Court in the impugned judgment. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim against respondent No.2 - Insurer fixing liability only on respondent No.3, legal representative of the deceased respondent No.1, owner of the crime vehicle No.AP 10T 3168. In the said circumstances, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand in view of the specific evidence let in by respondent No.2 as stated above. 24. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded an amount ofRs.2,22,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent No.3 only. 24. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded an amount ofRs.2,22,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent No.3 only. The Tribunal by considering Ex.A4 - postmortem examination report, has arrived at the age of the deceased as 40 years and relying upon the evidence of PW.6, considered the monthly earning capacity as Rs. 1500/-. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased used to work as labourer and that the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 13 SCC 236 had considered monthly earning capacity of a coolie as Rs. 4,500/- and, therefore, according to him, the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 1500/-. In view of the principle held by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa, 2011 13 SCC 236 monthly earning capacity of the deceased in the present case shall also be considered as Rs. 4,500/-. There are 7' dependants and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 6 SCC 121 1/5th has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. On such deduction, an amount of Rs. 3,600/- (1/5th amount of Rs. 900 - Rs. 4,500/-) per month or Rs. 43,200/- per annum would be the earning capacity of the deceased. The relevant multiplier for the age groups of 36-40 years is 15' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, the appellants are entitled for Rs. 6,48,000/- (Rs.43,200 x 15) towards loss of dependency. Since the avocation of the deceased would come under self-employed scheme, an addition of 25% of the income should be awarded to the claimants as per the principle held by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680 for the age groups more than 40-50 years and the same would work out to Rs. 1,62,000/- (25% of Rs. 6,48,000/-). 26. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited, 2018 18 SCC 130 the claimants are entitled Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 27. 1,62,000/- (25% of Rs. 6,48,000/-). 26. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited, 2018 18 SCC 130 the claimants are entitled Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 27. Claimant No.1 is wife, while claimant Nos.2 to 5, children, and claimant Nos.6 and 7, parents of the deceased are considered to be the dependants for awarding spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium respectively. Therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each under the said heads as per the principle held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited, 2018 18 SCC 130 . Further, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards transportation. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and twenty two only) as compensation under the following heads against respondent No.3 alone: i) Loss of dependency .. Rs. 6,48,000-00 ii) Loss of Future prospects at 25% .. Rs. 1,62,000-00 iii) Funeral expenses .. Rs. 15,000-00 iv) Loss of estate .. Rs. 15,000-00 v) Spousal Consortium .. Rs. 40,000-00 vi) Parental consortium .. Rs. 1,60,000-00 vii) Filial consortium .. Rs. 80,000-00 viii) Transportation .. Rs. 5,000-00 ________________ Total compensation .. Rs. 11,25,000-00 28. The Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the same is not disturbed since there is no challenge to the same. However, the interest @ 7.5% per annum shall carry on the enhanced compensation granted by this Court. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Accordingly, the order and decree dated 27.10.2005 in O.P. No.753 of 1997 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and twenty two only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization against respondent No.3 alone. The finding exonerating the liability on respondent No.2 - Insurer, however, is confirmed. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, Respondent No.3 alone is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.