JUDGMENT B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent-Roayl Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Hanuman Junction Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, (in short the Royal Sundaram), U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 13/4/2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.335/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- Prl.District Judge, Ongole, (in short, the Tribunal). The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition partly, awarded total compensation of Rs.61, 52, 000.00 and by applying the principle of pay and recovery directed the appellant to pay 75% of the said amount which comes to Rs.46, 14, 000.00, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of T.Sreedhar in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29/4/2007. 3. The present Appellant is the 2nd respondent in MVOP No.335/2007 before the learned Tribunal; The 1st respondent in the appeal is the claimant; The 2nd respondent in the appeal is owner of lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 1012; The 3rd respondent in the appeal is the mother of the deceased. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 29/4/2007 at about 07.30 a.m., T.Sreedhar (in short, the deceased) along with his wife (petitioner) and other relatives were proceeding to a marriage function at Mellacheruvu village from Hyderabad in a Maruthi car bearing No.AP 28 AS 5792; when they reached a place near Kamineni Hospital, Narkatpally, a lorry bearing No.AP 37W 1012 belonging to the 1st respondent (owner) insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company, came in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi car; as a result all the in-mates of the car sustained severe injuries and were shifted to nearby hospital; T.Sreedhar (deceased) died in the hospital on the same day; police registered a case in Cr.No.49/2007 of Narkatpally Police Station for the offence punishable U/secs.337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code; Hence, the wife of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1, 00, 00, 000.00; The 3rd respondent is the mother of the deceased. 5. 5. The Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing counter on the ground that the driver of the crime lorry was not having effective driving license at the time of accident; and that the driver of the Maruthi car was also not having valid driving license; and the claim is excessive and arbitrary; and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 7. The learned Tribunal basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of 1st respondent or that of Maruthi car or that contributory negligence of both the driver? 2. What is the correct age and income of deceased as on the date of accident. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked apart from Exs.X-1 to X-5. On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent was examined as R.W-1 and on behalf of the appellant-2nd respondent, R.Ws-2 and 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked. 9. The learned Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that there was head on collision between the two vehicles i.e., lorry and the car, which contributed to the accident, and that the main negligence was on the part of the crime lorry and arrived the contributory negligence of the lorry at 75%, and the driver of the car at 25%. 10. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2, estimated income of the deceased as Rs.45, 000.00 per month, and considered his age as 34 years as on the date of accident. 11. The learned Tribunal further applied multiplier 17' considering the age of deceased as 34' years, and deducted 1/3 of income out of the earnings of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and considering the other conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium at Rs.32, 000.00, in all awarded a sum of Rs.61, 52, 000.00 towards just compensation. 12. 12. The learned Tribunal further on issue No.3 held that the insurer and the insured are jointly liable to pay compensation, though the driver of the lorry was not holding effective driving license on the date of accident, and the insurer shall pay the amount, and can recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings. and held that out of the said amount, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay 75% towards contributory negligence of the lorry, and arrived the said amount at Rs.46, 14, 000.00, and awarded interest at 9% p.a. on the said amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, and further held that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are entitled to the said amount equally. 13. The details of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads discussed above are as under: Thus, the claim petition was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal as per judgment and decree dtd. 13/4/2010 in MVOP 335/2007. 14. The learned counsel for Appellant would submit that the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the lorry was not holding effective driving license on the date of accident, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured, and the second ground is that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the liability of the appellant as 75% without any evidence. 15. The learned counsel for 1st respondent/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the contributory negligence of the lorry as 75% basing on the facts and circumstances placed before the learned Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal on considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases: 1) National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 . 2) Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 SAR (Civil) 290. 3) United India Insurance Company Vs. Lehru and others, 2003 ACJ 611 . and held that the insurer and the insured are jointly liable and applied the principle of pay and recovery, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 16. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the rate of interest awarded at 9% p.a. and it is excessive and usurious. and held that the insurer and the insured are jointly liable and applied the principle of pay and recovery, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 16. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the rate of interest awarded at 9% p.a. and it is excessive and usurious. The learned counsel for 1st respondent-claimant would submit that 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. the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal does not require any modification or interference by this Court. 17. The learned counsel for 1st respondent-claimant would further submit that in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . the claimant is entitled to future prospects. He would further submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 674 . the same can be awarded even in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, though no appeal or crossobjections are filed by the claimants, as the compensation awarded should be a just compensation. 18. We have considered the above submissions advanced by respective counsel and also perused the material available on record. 19. The following points would arise for our consideration: 1) "Whether the impugned award suffers from any illegality so as to warrant our interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, on the grounds that the learned Tribunal awarded excess compensation including rate of interest?" 2) "Whether the claimant is entitled to ask for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the claimant is entitled for future prospects?" 20. POINT No.1: The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license or effects license at the time of accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. POINT No.1: The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license or effects license at the time of accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. Second ground is that the learned Tribunal having found contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Maruthi car, should not have apportioned negligence in the ratio of 75% on the lorry and 25% on the Maruthi car, without evidence. 21. The learned Tribunal considered the question of contributory negligence basing on the evidence of the witnesses to the accident, and the rough sketch of scene of offence prepared by the police during investigation in Cr.No.49/2007 of Narkatpally Police Station. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the lorry was on the middle of the road, and the car was pushed aside due o impact of the collision of both vehicles, which were coming in opposite direction at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal also considered the fact that the car was laying at its left side on the road margin, and among the five in-mates of the car, four died, except the claimant, who sustained fractures, which would indicate that she was sitting on the rear left side of the car. 22. The learned Tribunal further considered Ex.A-6 Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, which would establish the damage caused to right side bumper and wind screen glass of the lorry and held that these facts would establish that there was a head on collision between the two vehicles that contributed the accident, and that the main negligence was on the part of the lorry, and therefore, estimated it at 75%. Nothing has been demonstrated by the appellant to establish that finding of the Tribunal is perverse. In that view of the clear finding based on facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. 23. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for appellant was that the driver of the lorry was not having any effective driving license at the time of accident. In that view of the clear finding based on facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. 23. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for appellant was that the driver of the lorry was not having any effective driving license at the time of accident. The learned counsel for appellant would further submit that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify, as there was a clear violation of terms of insurance policy, which mandates that the driver of the vehicle shall have a valid driving license. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, held that there was nothing on record to show that the insured i.e., the 1st respondent had knowledge that the driver was not holding effective driving license, and allowed him to drive the vehicle, and therefore, applied the principle of 'pay and recovery' relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases: 1) National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others. 2) Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka. 3) United India Insurance Company Vs. Lehru and others. 24. We have considered the material available on record. The appellant failed to establish that the 1st respondent/owner of the crime vehicle had knowledge that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license on the date of accident and wilfully allowed the driver to drive the lorry. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.Lehru and others, and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others, laid down the principle that non-availability of a driving license for the driver would not amount to violation of the provisions of the insurance policy, unless it is demonstrated that the owner was fully aware of this and permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, in clear violation of such policy. 25. We therefore hold that the order of the learned Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation first and to recover the same later from the owner of the vehicle in the same proceedings, does not warrant our interference.. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir relying another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, awarded interest @ 9% per annum. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir relying another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, awarded interest @ 9% per annum. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the contention of the insurance company that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 9% per annum is excessive. Therefore, we hold that there are no merits in the grounds urged by the appellant-insurance company, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered. 27. POINT No.2: The learned counsel for claimant would submit that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not award future prospects basing on the established income of the deceased. He would further submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the claimant is entitled to future prospects @ 40%, as the deceased has been working as 'System Analyst' and aged 34 years on the date of accident, come under the category of 'employee on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years'. The learned counsel for claimant-1st respondent would further submit that the Appellate Court can award the same in the appeal filed by the insurance company also, though the appeal is not filed by the claimant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others. 28. The learned Tribunal estimated the monthly income of deceased at Rs.45, 000.00 per month. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of deceased and arrived the monthly income of deceased at Rs.30, 000.00 (Rs.45, 000.00 15, 000). Thus, the annual income of deceased would be Rs.3, 60, 000.00 (Rs.30, 000.00 x 12). The learned Tribunal considered the age of deceased as 34 years' at the time of death, and applied multiplier 17' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.61, 20, 000.00 (Rs.3, 60, 000.00 x 17). The learned Tribunal considered the age of deceased as 34 years' at the time of death, and applied multiplier 17' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.61, 20, 000.00 (Rs.3, 60, 000.00 x 17). The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.32, 000.00 towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and in all, awarded a total sum of Rs.61, 52, 000.00 towards just compensation, and directed the appellant and the 1st respondent to pay 75% of the said amount towards their liability. 29. The learned Tribunal did not award future prospects on the established income of the deceased. The claimant is entitled to future prospects on the established income of the deceased in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for claimant. Thus, the future prospects @ 40% on the established income of deceased would be Rs.61, 20, 000.00 x 40/100 = Rs.24, 48, 000.00, in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of dependency. 30. The claimant is also entitled for Rs.15, 000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15, 000.00 towards loss of estate and Rs.40, 000.00 loss of spouse consortium as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, and total would be Rs.70, 000.00. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.61, 20, 000.00 + 24, 48, 000 + 70, 000 = Rs.86, 38, 000.00 and 75% of the said amount would come to Rs.64, 78, 500.00 (Rs.86, 38, 000.00 x3/4) towards just compensation as shown in the table. 31. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimant and the 3rd respondent would be Rs.64, 78, 500.00 towards 75% share of compensation payable by the respondents No.1 and 2. But the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.46, 14, 000.00. 32. In this case, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46, 14, 000.00 only towards compensation to the claimant and 3rd respondent, who is wife and mother of deceased respectively. But the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.46, 14, 000.00. 32. In this case, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46, 14, 000.00 only towards compensation to the claimant and 3rd respondent, who is wife and mother of deceased respectively. After re-assessing the loss of dependency, the claimant and the 3rd respondent are entitled to Rs.64, 78, 500.00 towards just compensation. 33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others held that the Appellate Court shall award just compensation, which is entitled by the claimants, even in the appeal filed by the insurance company. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent/insured (owner of crime vehicle) is liable to pay the said amount to the claimant and the 3rd respondent, towards just compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The appellant/insurer shall first pay the same and can later recover from the insured in the same proceedings. 34. It is pertinent to note down that the claim was made for Rs.1, 00, 00, 000.00. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to modify the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal, to the extent of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered. 35. In the light of above discussion, we find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, but by modifying the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dtd. 13/4/2010 passed in MVOP 335/2007, to the extent holding that the claimant and the 3rd respondent are entitled to Rs.64, 78, 500.00 towards just compensation, instead of Rs.46, 14, 000.00 towards 75% share of total compensation, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The appellant/insurer shall first pay the same and can later recover from the insured in the same proceedings. 36. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dtd. The appellant/insurer shall first pay the same and can later recover from the insured in the same proceedings. 36. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dtd. 13/4/2010 passed in MVOP 335/2007, to the extent holding that the claimant and the 3rd respondent are entitled to Rs.64, 78, 500.00 towards just compensation, instead of Rs.46, 14, 000.00 as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The appellant/insurer shall first pay the same and can later recover from the insured in the same proceedings. Out of the said compensation amount of Rs.64, 78, 500.00, the claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.32, 78, 500.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs, Seventy Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The 3rd respondent being mother of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.32, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.