JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the award and decree dated 10.01.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.326 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (for short “the tribunal”), the respondents have preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.No.776 of 2015 questioning the award passed by the tribunal. On the other hand, the claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.1138 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Muppasani Aravinda Babu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.09.2010. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children, claimant 5 is the mother, claimant 6 is the sister, and claimant 7 is the brother of the deceased. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 26.09.2010 at about 8 am the deceased and his father, Srinivasulu, started from Pamur in their car to go to Ongole to meet their auditor, when they reached Anjaneya Swamy temple near Valetivaripalem on Pamur-Kandukur road, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 1351 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction and dashed against the car, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and his father died while undergoing treatment. 5. The first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, but there is negligence on the part of the driver of the car the deceased who drove the car and caused the accident, and as such, they are not responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants. 6. The second respondent remained ex-parte. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the first respondent, the driver of the RTC bus, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The second respondent remained ex-parte. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the first respondent, the driver of the RTC bus, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver; and awarded compensation Rs.18,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. 9. In the grounds of appeal, and during the hearing, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the personal expenses of the deceased, erred in not awarding future prospects, and also failed to grant reasonable compensation under the head loss of estate, consortium and nourishment to the children of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly excessive; the claim petition is bad for the non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. the insurer of the car. 11. As seen from the grounds of appeals and the material on record and the submissions made on either side, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident in question. It is also not in dispute that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The said fact is also established by Ex.A.2, inquest report, Ex.A.3, PME report, and Ex.A.5, charge sheet. 12. Now the points for consideration are, I. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and requires modification. POINT No. I: a. To prove the manner of the accident, the claimant mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P. Venkata Subbaiah, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident. Though P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, testified about the manner of the accident, admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident in question. POINT No. I: a. To prove the manner of the accident, the claimant mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P. Venkata Subbaiah, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident. Though P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, testified about the manner of the accident, admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident in question. b. According to the evidence of P.W.2, on the date of the accident, he was going to Pamur in the RTC bus sitting in the front seat, when the bus reached Anjaneya Swamy temple near Valetivaripalem, some passengers cried loudly and requested to stop the bus and the conductor also gave a signal, thereby the driver of the bus turned his head to backside and the bus went to the wrong side and dashed the car, which was coming in opposite direction, as a result, the driver of the car, the deceased herein, died on the spot and the other person in the car, father of the deceased, received multiple injuries. After the accident, he alighted the bus and identified the persons injured in the accident. c. On behalf of the respondents, the driver was examined as R.W.1. He stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver. According to his evidence, the culvert was under repair on the left side of the road, and due to that, he turned the bus towards the right side at a low speed, but the driver of the car (deceased) did not observe and dashed the RTC bus. In cross-examination, he admitted that after the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against him, which is pending. The documents that were placed before the tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The respondents have not placed any material before the court to show how they got the source of information about the accident. d. This court views that either negligence or contributory negligence must be proved like any other fact, there is no different standard for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain as pleas as they are not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. To prove the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain as pleas as they are not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. To prove the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. Although no details of contributory negligence are provided in the counter, and no evidence is provided other than an allegation of a stray sentence in the counter, the manner in which the accident occurred, leaves no doubt that the driver of the offending bus was solely negligent in causing the said accident. While granting relief under the Act, the courts are not to be bound by mere technicalities but should adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a wider construction and meaning that would favour the victims. e. According to the evidence of R.W.1, the road was under repair on the left side of the road and due to that, he turned the bus towards the right side at a low speed. It is not the evidence of R.W.1 that he has taken all the precautions while taking turn towards the right side. In the absence of such evidence on record, it is difficult to conclude that R.W.1 had taken all precautions by applying signal lights etc. f. The contention of the respondent-Corporation regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, this Court views that since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the R.T.C. bus driver, the claimants did not implead the insurer of the car as a party to the proceedings. Taking into consideration the facts, the tribunal has come to a conclusion that the R.T.C. bus driver is responsible for the accident, which cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT No. II a. The compensation under the head loss of dependency is concerned; there is no dispute regarding the death of Muppasani Aravind Babu (deceased herein) due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT No. II a. The compensation under the head loss of dependency is concerned; there is no dispute regarding the death of Muppasani Aravind Babu (deceased herein) due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children, claimant 5 is the mother, claimant 6 is the sister and claimant 7 is the brother of the deceased. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased is not in dispute. b. The tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 32 years and applied the multiplier ‘17’ as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. In a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier as provided by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 . c. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was having fertilizers shop and a share in Vijayalakshmi Chitralaya and Ravi Kalamandi cinema theatre and a rice mill in Pamur and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. To prove the same, the claimants also adduced the evidence of P.W.3, an income tax auditor. According to his evidence, the deceased was having fertilizer shop in the name of Muppasani Sujatha, wife of Srinivasulu and mother of the deceased and they are paying income tax. He has not filed any document that he is a chartered accountant and he had not filed any record to show that he was filing income tax returns for the deceased. In the absence of the said evidence, the tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.W.3. d. The material on record shows that the father of the deceased also died in the said accident. They relied on Ex.A.10, an insurance policy, which goes to show that both the deceased are paying amounts under the said policy. Though the claimants have not placed any record to show the business of the deceased and his father, they relied on Ex.A.6-B pharmacy certificate, Ex.A.7-Diploma in pharmacy certificate and Ex.A.8-Pharmacist registration card of the deceased. The said documents show that the deceased was a graduate of pharmacy. Though the claimants have not placed any record to show the business of the deceased and his father, they relied on Ex.A.6-B pharmacy certificate, Ex.A.7-Diploma in pharmacy certificate and Ex.A.8-Pharmacist registration card of the deceased. The said documents show that the deceased was a graduate of pharmacy. e. In the absence of proof of income, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another, 2011 ACJ 1702 , wherein it was held that in the absence of proof of income, the notional income for an Engineering Student was considered between Rs. 12,000/- p.m. and Rs. 15,000/- p.m. In Ashwani Kumar Bhandari v. Darshana, 2011 ACJ 2082 a Single Judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the income of B. Pharmacy Student in a case of death as Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, this Court views that there is every possibility of getting Rs.9,000/- per month for a graduate of B-pharmacy. f. Regarding the award in respect of the future prospectus is concerned, the tribunal did not award any amount towards the future prospectus. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 the Apex Court, at paragraph 61, held that, (iii) When determining the income, an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40, should be made. The addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased is between 40 to 50 years. If the deceased was between 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as basic salary less tax. (iv) If the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an additional 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary computation method. The established income means the income minus the tax component. g. Here, in this case, the deceased was 32 years old. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary computation method. The established income means the income minus the tax component. g. Here, in this case, the deceased was 32 years old. This Court, relying on Ex.A.6-B.Pharmacy certificate of the deceased and Ex.A.7-Diploma in Pharmacy certificate of the deceased, considered that the deceased was a graduate in B-pharmacy and also considered self-employed, and as such, this Court views that an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant towards future prospectus. The monthly income, including a future prospectus, arrives at Rs.12,600/- (9,000+ 3,600). h. The tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and erred in applying the multiplier ‘17’ following the second schedule of the M.V. Act. The same is questioned by the claimants by contending that the dependants are 7 in number, and the tribunal is required to be deducted 1/7th of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. I have gone through the claim petition, wherein it is mentioned that the first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children aged 10 years, 8 years and 5 years old respectively, claimant 5 is the mother and claimants 6 and 7 are the sister and brother of the deceased. i. In Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1908 the Apex Court has provided the standard deduction of one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 and one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6. In the facts of the case, this Court views that the tribunal is erred in deducting the personal and living expenses. Claimants 6 and 7 are majors and they are not dependent on the earnings of the deceased. And hence, the deceased's contribution of earnings to the family comes to Rs.9,450/- (Rs.12,600 (minus) 1/4th of the personal and living expenses Rs.3,150/-) and applying the multiplier ‘16’ for the persons aged 31 to 35 years, which is provided by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma’s case and thereby computed the loss of dependency at Rs.18,14,400/-. And hence, the deceased's contribution of earnings to the family comes to Rs.9,450/- (Rs.12,600 (minus) 1/4th of the personal and living expenses Rs.3,150/-) and applying the multiplier ‘16’ for the persons aged 31 to 35 years, which is provided by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma’s case and thereby computed the loss of dependency at Rs.18,14,400/-. j. Coming to the consideration of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the Apex Court held, in paragraph 61, that: "(viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at 10% every three years." k. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. …. (8.7) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.), dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', parental consortium', and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Concerning a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The filial consortium is the right of parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the end of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The most incredible suffering for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and role in the family unit." l. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case and Magma General Insurance Co. The most incredible suffering for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and role in the family unit." l. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd's cases referred to supra, this Court inclined to award the compensation as detailed hereunder:- Towards loss of dependency Rs.18,14,400/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Towards Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Spousal consortium Rs. 44,000/- Parental consortium Rs. 1,32,000/- Filial consortium Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 20,43,400/- m. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003 A.C.J. 12 (SC) 274) held as under: “It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.” n. In Ramla vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., CIVIL APPEAL No.11495 OF 2018, the Apex Court held no restriction to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. As such, given the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.20,67,400/- exceeding the claimed amount. However, the claimants shall pay the requisite court fee over and above the compensation awarded. o. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, this Court can safely be concluded that the claimants are entitled to get more than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration. The courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. Accordingly, point No. II is answered. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal preferred by the respondents in M.A.C.M.No.776 of 2015 is dismissed, whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.1138 of 2015, is allowed, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,50,000/- to an amount of Rs.20,43,400/- (Rupees twenty lakhs, forty-three thousand and four hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal preferred by the respondents in M.A.C.M.No.776 of 2015 is dismissed, whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.1138 of 2015, is allowed, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,50,000/- to an amount of Rs.20,43,400/- (Rupees twenty lakhs, forty-three thousand and four hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. The wife of the deceased, Claimant No.1, is entitled to enhanced compensation with accrued interest on it. The claimants shall pay the requisite court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondents are directed to deposit balance compensation amount, if any, after excluding the amount deposited, within two months of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation as per the terms of the Tribunal's order by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs in both appeals. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.