JUDGMENT : Challenging the decree and award, dated 20.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.377 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the tribunal”), the petitioners preferred this appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter called as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners is that on 27.12.2006 at about 3-00 p.m., one D. Seshu Kumar (hereinafter called as “Deceased”) along with his wife and son started on a motor cycle bearing No. A.P.16 AS 5856 from Kesarapalli to Gannavaram to purchase a cake at Venus Snacks Bakery. After purchasing cake, while returning to home from Gannavaram to Kesarapalli and reached near R.T.C. Academy, Gannavaram, one lorry bearing No.A.P.16W 8966 (hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”) came in rash and negligent manner at high speed, behind the motor cycle of deceased and dashed the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased, his wife and son fell on the road and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Dr. Siddhardha Institute of Medical Sciences at China Avutupalli Village wherein after examination of deceased, the doctor declared the deceased as dead. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and head injury. 4. The report of wife of deceased is registered as a case in Crime No.317/2006 U/Sec.337, 304-A IPC on 27.12.2006. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent is owner of the offending vehicle having valid registration of offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle, having insurance policy in force as on the date of accident. They are proper and necessary parties to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The deceased is an agriculturist and having departmental stores and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month and spending the entire amount for the welfare of the family members. The deceased is aged about 29 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. He died leaving behind his wife, son and parents. Hence, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. 6. The 1st respondent filed counter by denying the averments of petition, while admitting that he is driver of the offending vehicle, having valid driving license at the time of accident. The deceased is aged about 29 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident. He died leaving behind his wife, son and parents. Hence, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. 6. The 1st respondent filed counter by denying the averments of petition, while admitting that he is driver of the offending vehicle, having valid driving license at the time of accident. He contended that the injury sustained by the deceased was only due to fall on the road and accident was occurred due to negligence driving of the deceased without following traffic rules, without giving any signal, etc., as such, the accident was occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 7. The 1st respondent submitted that the offending vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent. He is only an employee under 2nd respondent, as such, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The M.V. Inspector did not express any different opinion regarding the cause of accident in M.V.I. report. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurer/3rd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation as indemnifier to the petitioners, if any payable to the petitioners. He contended that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and they are put to strict proof of the averments regarding age, earning capacity of the deceased at the time of accident. Hence, he requested to dismiss the claim petition. 8. The 2nd respondent remained exparte without filing counter. 9. The 3rd respondent filed counter by denying the averments of the petition and contending that the 3rd respondent is not received any intimation about the accident or any documents from the insured U/Sec.137(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. He contended that the insurer and insured of the motor cycle bearing No.A.P.16 AC 5856 are also proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter as accident was due to collision of the vehicles. 10. The 3rd respondent submitted that the deceased had driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules by violating traffic rules like triple riding, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 11. 10. The 3rd respondent submitted that the deceased had driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules by violating traffic rules like triple riding, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 11. The 3rd respondent contended that the claim of Rs.16,00,000/- is highly excessive and exorbitant and the claim of the petitioners is time barred and the petition is not maintainable under law. The Gannavaram police have not forwarded relevant documents to the Insurance Company within 30 days from the date of accident. The 1st respondent is not having valid driving license and the offending vehicle was not validly insured. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, as such, it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the 3rd respondent requested to dismiss the claim petition. 12. Basing on the strength of the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.A.P.16 AW 8966 by the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom? (3) To what Relief? 13. During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 are marked on behalf of the Respondent No.3. 14. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal below answered the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are able to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. While answering issue Nos.2 and 3, the Tribunal below held that the petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to ask for compensation from any of the respondents. Accordingly, the Tribunal below dismissed the claim petition by its decree and award, dated 20.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present appeal. 15. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record. 16. Accordingly, the Tribunal below dismissed the claim petition by its decree and award, dated 20.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present appeal. 15. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal below failed to consider the case of the petitioners in correct perspective and in the light of the principles laid down in decided cases. He contended that the Tribunal below erred in interpreting Sub Section (2) of Section 166 of M.V. Act in the light of the fact that the accident took place on 27.12.2006, after 1994 amendment wherein the question of limitation would not arise. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal below ought not to have held that there is no surveying claim and the petitioners are not entitled to ask for the compensation from the Respondents. Finally, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent (i.e.) the Oriental Insurance Company Limited submitted that the Tribunal below passed the decree and award basing on the evidence available on record, and as such, interference of this Court is not required. 18. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court noticed that it is an admitted fact that on 27.12.2006, on the unfortunate day, the deceased D. Seshu Kumar while riding on a motor cycle along with his wife and so sustained multiple injuries and head injury in accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.16 W 8966. The Tribunal below on appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent. 19. Admittedly, the offending vehicle is having valid registration as on the date of the accident and also having the valid insurance coverage as per the insurance policy, dated 01.07.2006, which was marked as Ex.B.1. But, the Tribunal below considering the delay in filing the claim petition found that there is no any survival claim to the petitioners. 20. Admittedly, the petitioners filed claim petition on 15.07.2014, though the accident was occurred on 20.12.2006. But, the Tribunal below considering the delay in filing the claim petition found that there is no any survival claim to the petitioners. 20. Admittedly, the petitioners filed claim petition on 15.07.2014, though the accident was occurred on 20.12.2006. The Tribunal below considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Purohit and Company vs. Khatoonbee and others, AIR 2017 SC 1612 came to a conclusion that that in the claim petition filed by the petitioners failed to establish that the claim of the petitioners is live and surviving claim and filed within reasonable time and accordingly, held that the petitioners are not entitled to ask for compensation from the Respondents. 21. It is to be noted that after 14.11.1994, in view of the amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no limitation to file claim petition. Prior to 14.11.1994, there was limitation prescribed to file claim petitions. In the present case, admittedly, the accident occurred on 27.12.2006, subsequent to 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein there is no limitation to file claim petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal below having considered the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the victims and their family members, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the case on technical grounds. 22. The 1st Petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the 2nd Petitioner is minor son of the deceased and the Petitioners 3 and 4 are old aged parents of the deceased. After sudden demise of the bread earner of the family, the family members of the deceased, definitely, under shock for some days and to come into normal life, some time is required. Moreover, the petitioners may not have the knowledge of filing the claim petition. They may not be in a position to get the particulars of the vehicle, its driver and owner and policy of insurance. Due to that reasons, the delay might be caused. 23. In fact, the Parliament with its wisdom deleted the sub-section to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which stipulates limitation to file the claim petition considering the pathetic condition of the victims and their family members. The intention of the Parliament is to entitle the victims and their families to file claim petitions without any obstruction of limitation period. 24. The intention of the Parliament is to entitle the victims and their families to file claim petitions without any obstruction of limitation period. 24. In our considered opinion, the Courts have to show some liberal approach, while deciding the claim petitions filed under Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation. The Courts have to keep in mind that the victims and their dependants have to come out from the hardships being faced by them due to sudden demise of the bread earner of the family, instead of rejecting the claims on technical grounds. 25. The opinion of this Court is fortified by the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others, AIR 1996 SC 2155 which are extracted hereunder: 6. Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escape death some of such victims are hospitalized for months if not for years. 26. In Brahampal alias Sammay and another vs. National Insurance Company, (2021) 6 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder: “The legislation intends to provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protect their substantive rights, in pursuit of the same, the interpretation should not be as strict as commercial claims.” The Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.6 and 7 of the judgment opined as hereunder: 6. At the outset, we must note that Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial legislation intended at protecting the rights of victims affected in road accidents. Moreover, the Act is a self-contained code and itself which provides procedures for filing claims, for passing of award and for preferring an appeal. Even the limitations for preferring the remedies are contained in the code itself. 7. The interpretation of a beneficial legislation must be remedial and must be in furtherance with the purpose which the statue seeks to serve. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this Court on multiple occasions wherein this Court has highlighted the importance acknowledging legislative intention while interpreting the provisions of the statue.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex in Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corporation, (2009) 9 SCC 61, while interpreting the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act held that: “It being a beneficial legislation who receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objects.” 28. In Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 186 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of the Act held that strict compliance of procedures can be relaxed in order to ensure that victims receive just compensation. At para No.25, it is observed as extracted hereunder: “15. At the outset, we may reiterate as has been consistently said by this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident.” 29. In view of the above discussions, we hold that, the finding of the Tribunal below that the petitioners failed to establish the claim is live and surviving claim is unsustainable and untenable. 30. As per the material available on record, the petitioners contended that the deceased was running General Stores and also doing agricultural work. They filed Ex.A.8 (i.e.) certificate of registration in the name of the deceased. It reveals that the deceased is the Proprietor of Sri Srinivasa General Stores. 30. As per the material available on record, the petitioners contended that the deceased was running General Stores and also doing agricultural work. They filed Ex.A.8 (i.e.) certificate of registration in the name of the deceased. It reveals that the deceased is the Proprietor of Sri Srinivasa General Stores. Ex.A.8 and evidence of PW.1 is not disputed with regard to occupation of deceased. The appellants herein filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking leave of this Court to file copy of Return of Turnover tax (Quarterly) as additional evidence on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with said Interlocutory Application, this Court ordered I.A.No.1 of 2021. 31. On careful perusal of the return of turnover tax (quarterly) filed in Form TOT 007 before the Commercial Tax Office, Katuru Road, Vuyyuru on 31.10.2006 filed on behalf of Srinivasa General Stores, the taxable turnover for the period mentioned from 01.07.2006 to 30.09.2006 is Rs.1,24,960/- and the turnover tax @ 10% i.e., Rs.1,250/- was paid vide Challan No.7607, dated 31.10.2006, much prior to the date of accident i.e., 27.12.2006. 32. On careful perusal of Ex.A.8, the Certificate of Registration of Srinivasa General Stores, for which the deceased is the Proprietor and the copy of the return of turnover tax, dated 31.10.2006 filed on behalf of Srinivasa General Stores, this Court satisfied that the deceased at the time of death in road accident is running Srinivasa General Stores and paying turnover tax. As per the evidence of PW.1, the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, but she has not produced any document to establish the monthly income of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal found that the petitioners failed to establish the actual income of the deceased. But, in consideration of Ex.A.8 and a copy of turnover tax received as additional evidence in this appeal and the evidence of PW.1, in the opinion of this Court, the deceased definitely is having substantial income through his business. As there is no any specific evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased, some amount of guess work is required to be done. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify to consider the income on lower side. As there is no any specific evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased, some amount of guess work is required to be done. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify to consider the income on lower side. Admittedly, this appeal is filed by 4 appellants, who are the parents, wife and son of the deceased. The deceased would have earned sufficient income to maintain his entire family by running the General Stores. 33. In fact, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhawa vs. State of Bihar, 2001(8) SCC 197 in which it was held that in the absence of the proof of earnings, minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken. In the light of the said judgment, a learned single judge of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in T. Rama Krishna vs. Valluri Babu Rao and others, 2007(1) ALD 453 fixed the income of the deceased in the absence of any proof at the rate of Rs.3,500/- was taken to determine the compensation therein. 34. Considering the above judgments and the evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate and reasonable to consider the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month. 35. The age of the deceased is 29 years as on the date of accident as per the postmortem report which is marked as Ex.A.2. In the claim petition and evidence also the same is mentioned. In the claim petition filed in the year, 2014, the age of the 1st petitioner (i.e.) wife of the deceased is mentioned as 33 years. So, on 27.12.2006 (i.e.) the date of accident her age is 25 years. As such, her husband (i.e.) deceased age may be 29 years at that time. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as „29’ years. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the relevant multiplier to the age group of 26 to 30 is “17”. As such, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is “17”. The appeal filed by 4 dependants of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the relevant multiplier to the age group of 26 to 30 is “17”. As such, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is “17”. The appeal filed by 4 dependants of the deceased. Out of the income of the deceased, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, if he had alive while determining the compensation. As per the settled law in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) 40% income has to be calculated for future prospectus. Considering all these aspects, in the light of the settled law, the appellants are entitled for compensation under various heads can be detailed as below: (a) loss of dependency Rs.4,500/-x12x15-1/4+40% Rs.9,63,900.00 (b) loss to estate Rs. 15,000.00 (c) loss of consortium Rs. 40,000.00 (d) funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs.10,33,900.00 36. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others, LL 2021 SC 531 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded interest @ 6% per annum. By following the same, we hold that the appellants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.10,33,900/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e., 19.07.2014 to till the date of realization. 37. In the result, the MACMA No.2971 of 2018 is allowed and ordered as follows: (i) The decree and award, dated 20.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.377 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, is set aside; (ii) The Appellants are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.10,33,900/- (Rupees ten lakh thirty three thousand and nine hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum and proportionate costs; (iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e., 19.07.2014 to till the date of realization. (iv) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Appellants; (v) Out of total compensation awarded, the 1st appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only); the 2nd appellant being the son of the deceased is entitled Rs.3,83,900/- (Rupees three lakh eighty three thousand and nine hundred only) and the appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased are entitled Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only) each. (vi) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest and costs within one (01) month from the date of this judgment; failing which execution can be taken out against them. (vii) On such deposit, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon and costs; (viii) The share of the Appellant No.2 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank till he attain majority. However, he is entitled to withdraw interest every month for his educational purpose. 38. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.