JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 13.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 182/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,38,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Appikonda Lova Babu, in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the death of Appikonda Lova Babu, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the petitioners No. 2 to 4, and son of the petitioners No. 5 and 6, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.01.2012. 4. The facts show that on 08.01.2012 at about 08.00 p.m. the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26X 6667 going from Vissannapeta side towards Vemsoor being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and when it reached near the NTR canal on the outskirts of Venkatapuram village, drove the lorry under the low laying live electrical wires, as a result, the lorry came in contact with live electrical wires and the deceased Lova Babu was sitting in the cabin tried to get down from the lorry, meanwhile he was electrocuted and succumbed to injuries. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle after loading sugar cane of one Bhimireddy Chenna Reddy on the lorry. The Police of Vemsoor P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 4/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was hale and healthy, and he was 26 years old by the time of accident, used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month as a loading and unloading coolie. 5. The Police of Vemsoor P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 4/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was hale and healthy, and he was 26 years old by the time of accident, used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month as a loading and unloading coolie. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, filed written statement 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, contended that the driver of lorry has no driving license as on the date of accident, and the 2nd respondent is not having permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Jattu coolies are not entitled to travel with the load on the same vehicle and if anybody travels, it is a permit violation and also the violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The subject vehicle is a goods carriage and the seating capacity is three inclusive driver, owner and cleaner. The deceased and others in the cabin are unauthorised passengers, and the policy does not cover the risk of unauthorised passengers. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 26X 6667 by 1st respondent resulting death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1, Exs.X-1 to X-4 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, 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 the lorry, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1, Exs.X-1 to X-4 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, 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 the lorry, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,38,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents 1 to 3. 9. The Appellant/Insurance Company contention is that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger, and therefore, the Appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle. The other contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal below failed to fix the compensation as per section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Appellant also contended that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal below is on higher side. 10. In the light of above contention of the appellant, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the deceased is an unauthorised passenger? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought to have fixed the compensation under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive? 4. To what relief? 11. POINT No. 1: The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger travelling in the crime vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle, as terms of the policy are violated. 12. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle at the time of accident as a coolie to load and unload the goods, and he was sitting in the cabin of the vehicle and coolie is covered by the policy. 13. The Appellant contended that the coolies are not entitled to travel with load, and if anybody travels, it is a permit violation, and also of terms the policy. 14. It is an admitted fact that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is a lorry bearing No. AP 26X 6667. Therefore, the subject vehicle is a goods carriage. 13. The Appellant contended that the coolies are not entitled to travel with load, and if anybody travels, it is a permit violation, and also of terms the policy. 14. It is an admitted fact that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is a lorry bearing No. AP 26X 6667. Therefore, the subject vehicle is a goods carriage. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the crime vehicle. The appellant/Insurance Company did not adduce contra evidence to disprove the same. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on the issue that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the crime vehicle. 15. There is no dispute that the crime vehicle was duly insured with the appellant under Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy. The claimants contended that the deceased was travelling as a coolie for loading and unloading of sugarcane, and the owner of the vehicle paid a premium of Rs.25/- under Ex.X-4, and later the same policy was transferred in favour of the 2nd respondent. 16. The claimants to prove their case, examined the owner of the crime/2nd respondent as PW-3, and Ex.X-4 original copy of the policy was filed. It shows that the vehicle was insured with the appellant for the period from 17.02.2011 to 16.02.2012. The original is in the name of one Mr. P. Murali Mohan, and it was later transferred to one Mr. Kondapalli Siva Prasad, and subsequently to the 2nd respondent i.e. PW-3. The evidence of PW-3 establish that Mr. P. Murali Mohan was a resident of Nellore, and K.Siva Prasad purchased the lorry from Mr. P. Murali Mohan on 16.06.2011, and subsequently, it was purchased by the 2nd respondent i.e. PW-3. The transfer of vehicle from K. Siva Prasad to PW-3 is also admitted, and the policy was also transferred to him by paying transfer fee. The appellant admitted these facts in the cross-examination of PW-3. 17. The appellant filed Ex.B-1 said to be copy of the policy under Ex.X-4. It does not contain any information about payment of premium covering coolies. Ex.X-4 which is an original contains transfer endorsements, it would show that an amount of Rs.25/- was paid towards additional premium to cover the risk of coolie. 17. The appellant filed Ex.B-1 said to be copy of the policy under Ex.X-4. It does not contain any information about payment of premium covering coolies. Ex.X-4 which is an original contains transfer endorsements, it would show that an amount of Rs.25/- was paid towards additional premium to cover the risk of coolie. The appellant did not file copy of the policy issued in favour of Mr. P. Murali Mohan. It filed only a copy of the policy standing in the name of PW-3. The appellant did not give any reason why it has not filed copy of Ex.X4. Ex.B-1 shows as if it was directly issued to PW-3. It does not reflect the fact that originally Mr. P. Murali Mohan insured the vehicle, and later it was transferred to Mr. K. Siva Prasad, and subsequently to the 2nd respondent i.e. PW-3. The appellant for the reasons best known to it, did not choose to produce the copy of original policy issued in favour of Mr. P. Murali Mohan. It appears that the appellant intentionally suppressed Ex.X-4, and filed Ex.B-1 only to avoid their liability. Ex.X-4 would show that an amount of Rs.25/- was paid towards additional premium to cover a coolie travelling in the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling as a coolie to load and unload sugarcane at the time of accident. There is no evidence also to establish that terms of the permit were violated. Therefore, the appellant is liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle as per the terms of Ex.X-4 insurance policy. Accordingly, this point is answered. 18. POINT No. 2: The appellant in the appeal grounds raised a plea that the Tribunal has to determine the liability of the Insurance Company in accordance with the provisions of Employees Compensation Act/Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. A perusal of counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal does not show any such plea. Perusal of the evidence of RW-1 examined by the appellant before the Tribunal also does not disclose such a plea. The appellant did not raise the said plea in the cross-examination of PW-1 also. Therefore, it is clear that before this Court only, the appellant raised this plea. 19. Perusal of the evidence of RW-1 examined by the appellant before the Tribunal also does not disclose such a plea. The appellant did not raise the said plea in the cross-examination of PW-1 also. Therefore, it is clear that before this Court only, the appellant raised this plea. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mastan and Others, AIR 2006 SC 577 on section 165, 166 and 167 of M.V. Act 1988, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, held that if the claimant opted to proceed under Motor Vehicles Act, he cannot take a recourse to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dyamavva and Others, 2013 (9) SCC 406 reiterated the above principle. 20. Therefore, if the claimant has opted to proceed under Motor Vehicles Act, he cannot take a recourse to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and vice versa. In the case on hand, the claimants filed the application under section 166 of Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be decided as per the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is not tenable and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No. 3: The evidence on record establish that the deceased was working a coolie, and aged 26 years at the time of accident. As per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 the relevant multiplier is ‘22’. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. @ Rs.100/- only per day. The accident was occurred in the year 2012. The deceased was working as loading and loading coolie for the lorry. In that view of the matter, his income can be considered as Rs.125/- per day, instead of Rs.100/- as reasonable amount towards daily wages of a loading coolie of a goods vehicle, at the relevant point in time. 22. The Tribunal has considered the loss of future prospects @ 50%. In that view of the matter, his income can be considered as Rs.125/- per day, instead of Rs.100/- as reasonable amount towards daily wages of a loading coolie of a goods vehicle, at the relevant point in time. 22. The Tribunal has considered the loss of future prospects @ 50%. It is not correct, view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 it shall be at 40% only, since the deceased is below 40 years. The Tribunal deduced 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses of the deceased, though he is having a wife, three children and both parents. As per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case, it should be 1/5th, when the dependants are more than 5. In that view of the matter, the compensation fixed by the Tribunal below has to be reassessed. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs.3,750/- per month, 1/5th of the said amount shall be deduced towards his personal expenses. It comes to Rs.3,750 – 750 = Rs.3,000/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/-. Adding future prospects @ 40%, it comes to Rs.36,000 + 14,400 = Rs.50,400/-. It is the multiplicand. The multiplier applicable is ‘17’. Therefore, loss of dependency is multiplicand x multiplier. It comes to Rs.50,400 x 17 = Rs.8,56,800/-. 23. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes to Rs.8,56,800 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 = Rs.9,26,800/-. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, 2018 ACJ 2782 held that The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims parental consortium can be awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. 25. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, C-2 to C-4 are also entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation the claimants entitled to comes to Rs.9,66,800. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,38,500/- only towards total compensation. 25. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, C-2 to C-4 are also entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation the claimants entitled to comes to Rs.9,66,800. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,38,500/- only towards total compensation. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive is not a tenable plea. Accordingly, the point is answered. 26. The other contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal granted interest at 8% p.a. and therefore, it is excessive. The Tribunal awarded interest at 8% p.a. from the date of presentation of petition, till the date of deposit. The accident was occurred in the year 2012, and the claimants filed the petition in the year 2012. The Appellant/Insurance Company without admitting for a just, fair and reasonable compensation, has been dragging the matter for the last 10 years raising untenable pleas. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SC 481 about granting interest @ 9% p.a. in cases under M.V Act cases, there is no reason to modify the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. Accordingly, this point is answered. 27. POINT No. 3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No. 1 and 2, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award 13.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 182/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. There shall be no order as to the costs. 29. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.