JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.523/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court, Ongole, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Yerramudi Thirupathaiah in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.163 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-on account of the death of Yerramudi Thirupathaiah, who is son of the petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.11.2008. 4. The facts show that on 07.11.2008 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased Yerramudi Thirupathaiah, Kakunuri Audinarayana, and others, who wore Mala of Swamy Ayyappa, had taken bath near a public tap near Rajeev Colony, and after they are coming to the village, at that time auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, hit Yerramudi Thirupathaiah and others, and as a result of which, the deceased and others fell on road and sustained multiple injuries and they were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Podili, and from there to Ongole, where the deceased succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged about 20 years and he is an agriculturist and earning Rs.5,000/-per month and contributing the same to the family maintenance. The petitioners, who are parents of deceased, depending upon their son Yerramudi Thirupathaiah, and due to sudden death of their son, they sustained heavy loss and suffered mental agony. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the material averments of the petition, contending that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver and it is the negligence of deceased-Yerramudi Thirupathaiah and K.Audinarayana. 6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as the 3rd respondent indemnifies the liability of 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle. The compensation 1st claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. 6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as the 3rd respondent indemnifies the liability of 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle. The compensation 1st claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. The respondent/driver is having valid driving license at the time of accident and the policy is in force, as such, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The counsel for 1st respondent filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. 7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, filed a counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the police and relatives of deceased fabricated the case to the extent that the driver of auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757 was responsible for the accident and altered the number of vehicle from AP 27X 6756 and filed charge sheet against driver of the vehicle No.AP 27X 6757 for the purpose of getting compensation from the insurance company. It is further contended that the crime vehicle has no permit to ply on road at the time of accident and the 1st respondent was not holding driving license to drive the auto at the time of accident, and thereby violated the provisions of section 3 of M.V.Act, and the 2nd respondent had knowingly and wilfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy and handed over the crime vehicle to the 1st respondent, thereby the 3rd respondent is not at all liable to indemnify the liability of 2nd respondent. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and petitioners are not entitled for any amount. 8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto AP 27X 6757 on 07.11.208 at 06.30 p.m. near Rajeev Nagar on Podili-Darsi Road? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct? 4. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct? 4. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 11. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , while awarding compensation and deduced only 1/3 of income of deceased, towards his personal expenses, instead of 50%, though the deceased is an unmarried person. The other contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the evidence established that the respondent/driver of the crime vehicle was having license to drive light motor vehicle only, but the crime vehicle is a transport vehicle. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with the facts of the case, and contrary to law. 12. In the light of above contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in the appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as under: 1. “Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3 of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses, instead of 50%?” 2. “Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle?” 13. “Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3 of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses, instead of 50%?” 2. “Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle?” 13. POINT No.1: The case of the respondents/claimants is that they are the parents of deceased Yerramudi Thirupathaiah, and on 07.11.2008 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased Yerramudi Thirupathaiah and one Mr.K.Audinarayana and others had bath near Rajeev Colony to attend Ayyappa Swamy Pooja and they were returning to the village and while so, an auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and others, and as a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Podili, and later to Ongole, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries, and the respondents/claimants who are depending on their deceased son suffered heavy loss and therefore, they filed the claim application to grant compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest. 14. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and others, and the driver of the auto was not having valid license, and further, the accident was occurred due to an auto bearing No.AP 27X 6756, which has no policy. Therefore, the claimants and the police colluded and changed the vehicle number to AP 27X 6757, and further, the driver is having a light motor vehicle non-transport license only. Whereas the auto is a transport vehicle, and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the driver and owner of the auto. 15. The appellant/Insurance Company in the cross-examination of P.W-1 made an attempt to say that the auto bearing No.AP 27X 6756 was involved in the accident, as it was not having policy, the auto number was changed to AP 27X 6757. Nothing was elicited in support of its contention. The respondents/claimants in support of their case, filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A-4 copy of M.V.I.Report and Ex.A-5 copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by police before the Magistrate for the offence punishable U/s.337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle AP27X 6757. The respondents/claimants in support of their case, filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A-4 copy of M.V.I.Report and Ex.A-5 copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by police before the Magistrate for the offence punishable U/s.337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle AP27X 6757. All these documents support the case of the claimants that the crime vehicle was involved in the case is an auto bearing No.AP 27X 6757. The appellant/Insurance Company did not adduce any contra evidence. The appellant/Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to show that there was an auto was registered with the RTO authorities bearing No.AP 27X 6756. 16. The appellant/Insurance Company examined the RTO Official as R.W-2. He did not depose anything stating that the registration bearing number AP 27X 6756 belongs to an auto. His evidence is only with regard to license of the auto driver. 17. The appellant/Insurance Company examined its Administrative Officer as R.W-1. In the chief-examination affidavit, he did not state that the vehicle involved in the accident was an auto bearing No. AP 27X 6756 as shown in the FIR, but later the number was changed to AP 27X 6757. Therefore, in the light of evidence available on record, it can be held that the appellant/Insurance Company contention is without any evidence. 18. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.150/-per day, and fixed the same at Rs.4,500/-per month. The age of the deceased was arrived at 20 years. Admittedly, the deceased was an unmarried person. The Tribunal considering the age of mother of the deceased, has applied multiplier 16. Thereby compensation amount was arrived at Rs.8,64,000/-, and deducted 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The remaining portion of amount i.e., Rs.5,76,000/-was taken into consideration towards compensation. 19. Admittedly, the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.4,500/-per month. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.54,000/-per month. The multiplier to be applied is 18, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Therefore, the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.54,000 x 18 = Rs.9,72,000/-. Out of the said amount, 50% shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the amount towards loss of dependency would be at Rs.4,86,000/-. 20. Therefore, the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.54,000 x 18 = Rs.9,72,000/-. Out of the said amount, 50% shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the amount towards loss of dependency would be at Rs.4,86,000/-. 20. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/-each towards loss of consortium, and thereby the total amount of compensation entitled by the respondents/claimants would be Rs.4,86,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.5,96,000/-. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to modify the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,00,000/-. Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No.2: The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having license to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle, and he was holding license to drive light motor vehicle only. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its case, examined R.W-2, who is an Official from Road Transport Office, Ongole. He deposed that the 1st respondent/driver is holding a license to drive light motor vehicle only, and he was not having a license to drive non-transport light motor vehicle. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the driver was entitled to drive non-transport light motor vehicle since 04.10.2008, and it is valid till 03.10.2028, and he was permitted to drive light motor vehicle including four wheelers, and after one year from the date of issuance of license, he will be issued a license to drive a transport vehicle on his application, and he will be provided with badge by Road Transport Authorities to drive the transport vehicle also, establishing that the respondent/driver was having a valid license to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle at the time of accident. In the said circumstances, the question is whether the Tribunal ought to have facilitated the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation amount. Similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santalal Vs. Rajesh and others, 2017 AIR (Civil 734), it is held as under: “This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? Rajesh and others, 2017 AIR (Civil 734), it is held as under: “This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that a driver having license to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement. Hence, there was no breach of condition of policy. 23. In that view of the matter, the appellant/Insurance Company along with respondents No.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this point is answered. 24. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of petition, till the date of realisation. The accident was occurred in the year 2008 and the Appellant/Insurance Company without admitting for just, fair and reasonable compensation, dragging on the matter for the last 14 years. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 which referred another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 which referred another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SC 481 granting interest @ 9% p.a., is not exorbitant and excessive. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. 25. In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.523/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-Judge, Family Court, Ongole. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.