JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 15.07.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.186/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of T.Kadirappa in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-on account of the death of T.Kadirappa, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioners No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2011. 4. The facts would show that on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased T.Kadirappa got into a tempo (Mahindra company) bearing No.AP 03 U 8810 with a load of vegetables. When the tempo reached E.B.Cross Road at about 01.15 a.m. on 29.08.2011 a car being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the tempo. Due to that impact, the tempo turned turtle, due to which the deceased fell out of the vehicle and received a head injury, apart from other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Adakkambanaru Government Hospital and he succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment in the said hospital. The deceased T.Kadirappa was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, and he was an agriculturist and also doing vegetables business. He used to supply vegetables to Koyambedu Market, Chennai earning Rs.10,000/-per month. In this connection, a case was registered by SHO, Tirivallam Police Station, Vellore District, Tamilnadu, in Cr.No.230/2011 U/s.337, 338, 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222. The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 8810. The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 8810. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the car. The 4th respondent is insurer of car and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 8810. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the car. The 4th respondent is insurer of car and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. Before, the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments in the petition, and contended that on 29.08.2011 at about 01.15 a.m. when they reached E.B.Cross Road, a car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222 came on high speed without proper caution, and to avoid hitting the car, the 1st respondent who was driving the tempo applied sudden brake and due to it, the vehicle turned turtle, and as a result, the deceased T.Kadirappa fell out of the vehicle and sustained a head injury and other injuries on his body. Immediately he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Adakkambanaru, where he succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement, denying the material averments of the petition, contended that the petitioners did not file any record in support of the contention of age, occupation and monthly income of deceased T.Kadirappa. It is further contended that the deceased T.Kadirappa is aged more than 55 years and was not earning Rs.10,000/-per month. There was no rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 8810, and the said accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222. 7. The 4th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Karimnagar, filed a written statement resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to the proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further, he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. The 1st respondent handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and thereby, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The 1st respondent handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and thereby, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the 3rd respondent was also not having a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The 3rd respondent remained exparte. 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 manner of the driving of the drivers of vehicle Mahindra Load King bearing No.AP 08 U 8810 or Hyundai Verna Car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222 resulting in the death of deceased T.Kadirappa? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hyundai Verna Car driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against respondents 3 and 4 only, and the petition against the respondents No.1 and 2 is dismissed. 11. This appeal is filed by Reliance General Insurance Company, represented by its Manager against the impugned order and decree dated 15.07.2015 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Madanapalle, awarding a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-towards compensation U/s.166 of M.V.Act. 12. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased 1st T.Kadirappa is the husband of the claimant, and father of claimants No.2 and 3, and on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 a.m. the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle bearing No.AP 03U 8810 along with load of vegetables transported by him, and when the said vehicle reached a place near E.B.Cross Road, at about 01.00 a.m. on 29.08.2011, a car which was coming in the opposite direction, dashed the tempo. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the car driver i.e., the 3rd respondent, and as a result, the deceased fell out of the tempo vehicle and received a head injury, and was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Adakkambanaru village, where he died while undergoing treatment. 13. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, for which the appellant is the insurer. 14. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, and as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained a head injury and died while undergoing treatment. 15. The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the order of the Tribunal, contending that the finding of the Tribunal was based on surmises, and not on the evidence available in the case. 16. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was working as an agriculturist and also cultivated vegetables and supplied them in the vegetable market at Koyambedu, Chennai, Tamilnadu State, and he was earning Rs.10,000/-per month and therefore, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-towards loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident. 17. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the amount claimed towards compensation is excessive, and the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month is not supported by any evidence. 18. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence and other material available on record, fixed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.5,000/-per month, and applied multiplier ‘11’ as per Schedule-II, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-towards loss of dependency, apart from Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, and Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, total Rs.4,20,000/-. 19. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the finding of the Tribunal is not correct, and the Tribunal awarded the said amount without any evidence. 20. The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the car was not having a valid license at the time of the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the car i.e., the 3rd respondent in the case. 21. 20. The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the car was not having a valid license at the time of the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the car i.e., the 3rd respondent in the case. 21. The learned counsel for the claimants in this appeal submitted that the claimants are entitled to more compensation as just compensation, but the Tribunal did not award just compensation and therefore, this Court can enhance the compensation amount, which is just compensation even in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, though the claimants did not file any appeal or cross objections and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others. 22. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligence driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation? 3. To what relief? 23. POINT No.1: The contention of the claimants is that on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 p.m. the deceased T.Kadirappa was travelling in a tempo motor vehicle bearing No.AP 03 U 8810 along with a load of vegetables, and when the vehicle reached a place near E.B.Cross Road, at about 01.15 a.m. on 29.08.2011, the car of the 3rd respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligence manner and dashed the tempo and as a result, the deceased fell out of the tempo and sustained a head injury and died in the hospital due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 24. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, but not due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the car. 25. The claimants in order to prove their case have examined one of the persons travelling in the tempo at the time of the accident, as P.W-2. 25. The claimants in order to prove their case have examined one of the persons travelling in the tempo at the time of the accident, as P.W-2. P.W-2 evidence shows that he also sustained injuries in the said accident, and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, and police registered a case against the driver of the car for the rash and negligent driving of the car at the time of the accident. The appellant cross-examined P.W-2, but could not elicit any material for coming to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, except that the deceased was sitting on top of the tempo at the time of the accident. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased died as he was sitting on the top of the vehicle. It is the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo and as a result, the deceased fell down from the tempo. 26. The claimants filed copies of the FIR and the police report (charge sheet) which were marked as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 respectively, which disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, and he was charged for the offence punishable U/s.338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 are corroborating the oral testimony of P.W-2. P.W-1 is the wife of the deceased, and she is not an eye witness to the accident. 27. The 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the tempo examined himself as R.W-1, and deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, and that the deceased was sitting on top of the said vehicle at the time of accident, and due to the accident, he fell down and received a head injury, and died on the way to the hospital. The appellant did not choose to cross-examine R.W-1 to whittle down his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of R.W-1 supports the version of P.W-2, and the version found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 documents. The appellant did not choose to cross-examine R.W-1 to whittle down his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of R.W-1 supports the version of P.W-2, and the version found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 documents. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, is devoid of merits, and there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, this point is answered. 28. POINT No.2: The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-towards just compensation to the claimants. The claimants made the claim for Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation, on the ground that the deceased was working as an agriculturist, and also doing vegetables business at Koyambedu Vegetables Market, Chennai, Tamilnadu State, earning Rs.10,000/-per month. The appellant/Insurance Company in its counter filed before the Tribunal denied the claim, contending that it is an excessive claim, and not based on evidence. 29. The claimants in support of their claim have examined the wife of the deceased i.e., 1st claimant in the case as P.W-1. As per her evidence, the deceased was working as an agriculturist, and also doing vegetables business at Koyambedu Vegetables Market, Chennai, and used to earn Rs.10,000/-per month. The appellant as well as the insurer of the tempo vehicle were cross-examined P.W-1 at length. In the cross-examination of the appellant, P.W-1 admitted that as per ration card issued to their family, the annual income of her deceased husband was shown as Rs.13,000/-per annum. She denied the suggestion of the appellant that her husband was not doing vegetables business. The Tribunal upon considering the material available in the case, held that as there is no clear and convincing evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, fixed the income notionally at Rs.5,000/-towards established income of the deceased. 30. The claimants filed bills covered by Ex.A-6 to say that the deceased was supplying vegetables to the sellers at Koyambedu Vegetables Market, Chennai, but the claimants did not examine any witness to prove the said bills. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the income notionally fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/-per month. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/-. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the income notionally fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/-per month. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/-. The deceased T.Kaidrappa is having 3 dependants and therefore, 1/3 of income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would be Rs.60,000 – 20,000 = Rs.40,000/-. 31. As per Ex.A-2 death certificate and Ex.A-3 post mortem report, the age of deceased was shown as 50 years, though the claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the age of deceased as 50 years at the time of death. As per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the multiplier to be applied is ‘11’, but the Tribunal applied ‘10’, by committing mathematical error and awarded Rs.4,00,000/-only towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.40,000 x 11 = Rs.4,40,000/-. 32. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium for the death of deceased to the 1st claimant, who is the wife of deceased. Claimants No.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased, and they are majors at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, which comes to Rs.40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the total compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.4,40,000 + 70,000 = Rs.5,10,000/-. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.5,10,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,20,000/-only. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.5,10,000/-. 34. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Court can award compensation beyond the claim, if it is a just compensation, subject to the payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as excessive amount, as contended by the appellant/Insurance Company. 35. Admittedly, the claimants did not file any appeal or cross objections in this case, questioning the order and decree passed by the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC), held as follows: "just compensation" would obviously mean what is fair, moderate and reasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a particular case and the expression "which appears to it to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of compensation.” “In our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act.” 36. The High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act.” 36. The High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Chitra and others held at para 20 as follows: “Though the appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the negligence aspect, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the same in toto, this Court while confirming the negligence aspect as reached by the Tribunal, re-appreciating the evidence invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC and Article 227 of Constitution of India, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.17,60,400/-. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and what is required to be awarded is just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, even in the absence of appeal/cross-appeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, which has been recognised by the Honourable Supreme court in Nagappa V. Gurdayal Singh reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC). Therefore, in an endevour to do complete justice, this Court has enhanced the compensation.” In that view of the matter, it is clear that High Court can enhance the compensation, which is just, even though the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 37. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.5,10,000/-reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 38. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified partly, enhancing the compensation amount to Rs 5,10,000/-from Rs.4,20,000/-. 39. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered. 38. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified partly, enhancing the compensation amount to Rs 5,10,000/-from Rs.4,20,000/-. 39. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. But while dismissing the appeal, in view of the above findings regarding enhancement of compensation, the order of the tribunal is modified partly, as under: A. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs, and Ten Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.4,20,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only). The respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 4th respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and Ten Thousand only), along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. B. In the event of the 4th respondent/Insurance Company already depositing some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. Claimants No.2 and 3 being children of the deceased are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand only) each, along with the accrued interest thereon. The claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. 40. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.