JUDGMENT : These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act) are filed by M/s.United India Insurance Company and the claimants challenging the award dt.13.11.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Chittoor (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.27 of 2003 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till realization against Respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners on account of the death of Shaik Alla Bakshu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident at R.T.O Check Post, Palamaner Town on 23.12.2002. 2. Since these appeals are arising out of the same accident and raising common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition. 4. The factual context of the case, is as under: (a) A 40 years old Shaik Alla Bakshu was doing business in vegetables, Kanuga Seeds, Tamarind and Groundnuts etc., and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of his death. On 23.12.2002 at 7.30 p.m., while the deceased-Shaik Alla Bakshu was proceeding in 2nd respondent's bus bearing No.AP 03 V 2599 from Palamaner to Baireddipalli and when the bus reached near cattle farm RTO Check Post, near Palamaner Town, the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without taking care and dashed against the said bus as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. (b) The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 and based on the said report lodged by S. Subrahmanyam, who was the driver of the bus, a case in Crime No.130 of 2002 of Gangavaram Police Station under Sections 337 and 338 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 for having committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 337 & 338 IPC. (c) Wife, five minor children (four daughters and a son) and mother of Shaik Allabakshu (deceased) filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of his death in the said road traffic accident. (d) The 1st & 2nd respondents did not contest the matter. (e) The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the allegations and contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of narration of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belongs to the 1st & 2nd respondents, registration certificate and driving licences of the drivers of the 1st and 2nd respondents' vehicles. It is further averred that the petitioners should prove the age, avocation, income of the deceased and their relationship with him. It is further averred that the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition. (f) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’ lorry by its driver or the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent’ bus by its driver or both? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the death of Shaik Alla Bakshu and if so, to what extent and from whom? (3) To what relief? (g) In order to establish their claim, the claimants-petitioners adduced oral evidence. At the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were got marked. None were examined but Ex.B.1-certified copy of the insurance policy was marked, on behalf of the 3rd respondent. (h) On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.9 i.e., certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, Post Mortem Certificate, Accident Information Report, MVI Report etc., and Ex.B.1 - Insurance policy, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the alleged accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 by its driver and passed an award granting compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, and with proportionate costs against Respondents 1 and 3 from the date of the petition till realization. (i) On appreciation of the evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier "15". (i) On appreciation of the evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier "15". S. No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Compensation for loss of dependency 3,60,000/- 2. Loss of estate 2,500/- 3. Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium to the 1st claimant 5,000/- Total 3,69,500/- (j) Aggrieved by the said award passed by the learned Tribunal, the 3rd respondent-United India Insurance Company filed the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2662 of 2008. (k) Having dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the present appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.4265 of 2008 seeking enhancement of compensation by modifying the award and prayed for awarding just compensation. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the United India Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed illegality in awarding compensation. It is further submitted that the notional income of the deceased taken by the learned Tribunal is excessive and the figures/multiplier applied in awarding compensation are not justified, which called for interference of this Court. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is contrary to the law and the order of the learned Tribunal is not supported by any cogent reasons and therefore, urged the Court for reducing the compensation and the rate of interest to a reasonable sum by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. Further, he would submit that the learned Tribunal had committed an error in awarding less compensation under conventional heads without applying the principles laid down in the judgment of the Honb'le Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). Further, he would submit that, the claimants would have got more compensation than awarded and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not justified which called for interference of this Court. 7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? POINT: 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents. 7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? POINT: 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver or the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 03 V 2599 by its driver or both, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, gave finding in Page No.5 of the judgment at Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 during the course of his employment and the said vehicle had valid insurance coverage as on the date of the accident and therefore, the 1st and 3rd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners/claimants and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the 2nd respondent and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 26 U 1346 driven by its driver and that the offending vehicle was covered by insurance policy by the date of the accident. 9. In the present case, the alleged accident is not in dispute and the said accident had taken place on 23.12.2002 and the driver of the said offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Ex.A.5/Certified Copy of M.V. Inspector Report shows at Column No.15 as DL No.656/99 valid upto 12.12.2004. The offending vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy conditions, attained finality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Ex.B.1/ Insurance Policy proves that the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 was insured and the period of insurance was from 03.02.2002 to 02.02.2003. 10. The offending vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy conditions, attained finality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Ex.B.1/ Insurance Policy proves that the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 26 U 1346 was insured and the period of insurance was from 03.02.2002 to 02.02.2003. 10. The claimants are claiming that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was doing business in vegetables, tamarind, kanuga seeds and groundnuts etc., and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. But, the claimants did not choose to produce any documents to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, as claimed by them. But, the learned Tribunal considering the age and avocation of the deceased, fixed his earning capacity @ Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution to his family members would be Rs.2,000/- and thus, the annual contribution would be Rs.24,000/-. Further, the learned Tribunal gave finding that the aged of the deceased was 40 years at the time of his death, in view of the age mentioned in Ex.A.3/Post Mortem Certificate. 11. The learned Tribunal committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased. Even in the absence of any proof that he was doing business in Vegetables etc., the Tribunal had to take into consideration that the deceased was a labourer / coolie. At least he may get Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day, as the accident occurred during the year 2002. This Court is of the view that the deceased can be treated as a labourer/coolie and his monthly income as on the date of the accident i.e., 23.12.2002 can be taken into consideration by following the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein, at Para Nos.13 & 15, it was held as follows : “13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14……………. 15. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4500/-”. 12. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a labourer/coolie @ Rs.4,500/- per month, on the ground that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period in the year 2004 were in between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. 13. In the present case, the principal area of the dispute is with regard to the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was doing business in Vegetables and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal arrived at the finding that the deceased was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month. 14. The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was doing business in Vegetables and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal arrived at the finding that the deceased was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month. 14. Following the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa’s case supra, and in view of the contention of the petitioners/claimants, who claimed that the deceased was a Vegetable vendor and the accident having occurred in the year 2002, I am of the considered opinion that the notional income of the deceased can safely be re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month. Accordingly, this Court re-fixes the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no reason for the Tribunal to determine the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month, contrary to the above referred judgment. 15. The claimants are claiming the age of the deceased was about 35 years at the time of the accident. But, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the age of the deceased as 35 years. The learned Tribunal held that the aged of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident, in view of the age mentioned in Ex.A.3/Post Mortem Certificate. The learned Tribunal by taking into consideration of the age of 40 years, calculated the compensation. In Ex.A.2/Copy of the charge sheet the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years. Similarly in Ex.A.3/Post Mortem Certificate the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years. Except the above referred documents, there is no proof or material evidence to show that the age of the deceased was 35 years. In the absence of any material evidence, it can be said that the learned Tribunal has rightly gave a finding that the age of the deceased was 40 years by the date of the accident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident. 16. To grant compensation under various heads, now it is necessary to refer to the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) wherein, at Para-18, it was held as follows : “18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident. 16. To grant compensation under various heads, now it is necessary to refer to the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) wherein, at Para-18, it was held as follows : “18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.” 17. Considering that the deceased was between the age group of 36 – 40 years by the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier would be "15", in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) wherein, the loss of dependency was thus, re-assessed at Para-42 of the decision, which reads as under : “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 18. In the facts of the case and looking into the beneficial purpose of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is necessary to enhance the compensation by taking the notional income of the deceased as stated supra, which would serve the ends of justice. 19. In the instant case, evidently, the deceased was survived by wife, four daughters, one son and mother. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members is "seven". According to Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 1/5th of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On this aspect, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, at para-14, is as under : “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 20. On an overall view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/-, the annual income would be worked out to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/-). 1/5th of the said amount would be arrived at Rs.10,800/- (Rs.54,000 x 1/5 =Rs.10,800/-). After deducting the same towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income of the deceased would be arrived at Rs.43,200/- (Rs.54,000/- (-) Rs.10,800/- =Rs.43,200/-). Since the deceased was "40" years old at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier would be "15" for the assessment of the "Loss of Dependency" as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and therefore, the Loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.43,200/- x 15 = Rs.6,48,000/-). 21. Since the deceased was "40" years old at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier would be "15" for the assessment of the "Loss of Dependency" as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and therefore, the Loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.43,200/- x 15 = Rs.6,48,000/-). 21. Having applied the said multiplier, the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,48,000/-, and this Court finds that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under loss of dependency. A reading of Tribunal's award, makes it clear that the learned Tribunal's approach does not accord at all with current judicial opinion. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- under the head "Loss of Dependency", which would be substantive. 22. The learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, contrary to the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC). Funeral expenses: 23. Under this conventional head, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The same is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.15,000/- as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case. Loss of Estate: 24. Under this conventional head, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-. The same is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.15,000/-, as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Loss of Consortium: 25. Under this conventional head, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the 1st claimant(wife) which is not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). The same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.40,000/- to the 1st claimant. 26. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their family members, in cases of genuine claims. The same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.40,000/- to the 1st claimant. 26. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their family members, in cases of genuine claims. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma’s (supra), the five children of the deceased (Claimants 2 to 6) are entitled to the parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each for the loss of the parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training instead of compensation under the head of "loss of love and affection" and the mother of the deceased is also entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium under the head of "Filial Consortium" as was held in Magma Case (supra). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total consortium of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.40,000 /- x 7). 27. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of "just compensation" observed as under : “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 28. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. S. No. Heads of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.6,48,000.00 (Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000 (-) 10,800 (1/5th of 54,000/-) =43,200x15=Rs.6,48,000/-) 2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000.00 3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000.00 4. Loss of Consortium To Claimants 1 to 7 i.e., wife, five children and mother of the deceased 40,000 x 7 Rs.2,80,000.00 Total Rs.9,58,000.00 (-) Compensation awarded By the Tribunal Rs.3,69,500.00 Enhanced amount Rs.5,88,500.00 29. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000.00 3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000.00 4. Loss of Consortium To Claimants 1 to 7 i.e., wife, five children and mother of the deceased 40,000 x 7 Rs.2,80,000.00 Total Rs.9,58,000.00 (-) Compensation awarded By the Tribunal Rs.3,69,500.00 Enhanced amount Rs.5,88,500.00 29. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 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 the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an award. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get more compensation than claimed, but the Tribunal did not pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimants. Rather, it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable and the claimants are entitled to more compensation than the amount awarded. 30. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,69,500/- to Rs.9,58,000/-. 31. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A.No.2662 of 2008 preferred by M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, is hereby dismissed. Whereas, the another M.A.C.M.A.No.4265 of 2008 preferred by the petitioners/claimants is hereby allowed with costs enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,69,500/- to Rs.9,58,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till realization against Respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally. (ii) Respondents 1 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. (ii) Respondents 1 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. (iii) The claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed by them (As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)). (iv) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. (v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. (vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. (vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.