JUDGMENT : V. Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.06.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.205 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellants herein are the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased Hari Babu, who driven the car at the time of accident. 3. According to the claimants, on 13.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on a road running from Chittoor to Kurnool, N.H.18 in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal, when the deceased along with his friends was proceeding in Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 came in opposite direction with sugarcane load at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said car. As a result of which, spark ignited in the engine of car, which caught hold fire on the spot and the inmates of the car also died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and working as Analyst Programmer in Syntel Ltd., Chennai and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. They filed M.V.O.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against the insurers and insured of both the vehicles. 4. Counter was filed by the owner of lorry denying all the material allegations stating that there was no negligence on the part of driver of lorry and the accident occurred due to careless and contributory negligence of deceased Haribabu, who driven car at the time of accident and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Counter was filed by the insurer of the lorry, denying all the material allegations, stating that the policy issued to the lorry was in force at the time of accident; and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased and hence, the insurer of the lorry is not liable to pay compensation. 6. 6. Counter was filed by one of the legal heirs of owner of the car stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry; that the driver of the car was having valid driving license and the policy issued to the car was in force at the time of accident and hence insurer of the car is liable to pay compensation. 7. Counter was filed by the insurer of car stating that the driver of the car was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy; and that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive and hence prays to dismiss the petition. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues basing on the material : 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing Regn No.AP 04 T 0948 of 1st Respondent or due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (deceased) of the Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337 of Respondents 4 to 6 on 13.02.2011 ? 2. Whether Sunkireddi Hari Babu died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident ? 3. What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of his death ? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so to which amount and from whom ? and 5. To what relief ? 9. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11, X.1 to X.7 were marked. On behalf of the insurer of the lorry and car, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. 10. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and dismissed the petition. 11. It is against the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 12. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the car and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the lorry. 13. 11. It is against the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 12. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the car and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the lorry. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not considered the contradictory statement of RW.2, which was marked as Ex.A11; that it failed to consider the evidence of PW.3 in proper perspective; that it has to award just and reasonable compensation under various heads as claimed as the Act was inserted by Act of 1994 as a special measure to ameliorate the difficulties of the family members of the deceased who died in use of motor vehicle and it makes the owner of motor vehicle or authorized insurer liable to pay compensation as indicated in second schedule to legal heirs of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal without considering the evidence that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry and the inmates of the car died on the spot, dismissed the claim of the appellants and prayed to award just compensation. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of lorry submits that there was no negligence on the part of driver of lorry and that the accident was occurred only due to negligent driving of car only and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of car submits that there was no negligence on the part of driver of car and that the accident was occurred only due to negligent driving of driver of lorry only and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 16. After hearing both sides, the following points that arise for determination are : 1. Whether there is any flaw in arriving the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of car? 2. Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief ? 17. POINT No.1: In deciding the point whether there is negligence on the part of the driver of car as well driver of lorry, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that it is a composite negligence on the part of both the drivers. 2. Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation? 3. To what relief ? 17. POINT No.1: In deciding the point whether there is negligence on the part of the driver of car as well driver of lorry, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that it is a composite negligence on the part of both the drivers. To verify the said fact, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence placed on record by both the parties before the Tribunal. 18. In the pleadings of the claim petition, the manner of accident was narrated as follows : On 13.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on Chittoor-Kurnool National Highway in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal, when the deceased was proceeding in a Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337 along with his friends, when they reached Naravari Rahadari turning, at that time the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 belonging to the 1st respondent came in opposite direction with a load of sugarcane with high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car. As a result of which, spark ignited in the engine of car, caught hold the fire on the spot and the inmates in the car died in the accident on the spot. Thereafter, deceased were shifted to Government Hospital, Piler to conduct Post Mortem examination and according to the claimants, a case in Crime No.4 of 2011 on the file of Kallur Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 279 I.P.C. under Ex.A1. Ex.A4-Copy of M.V.I. report speaks that both the vehicles were not fit for road test since they were burnt and damaged due to fire. So Motor Vehicle Inspector could not give any clue that at whose instance the accident was occurred. In Ex.B2-ceritifed copy of final report, the Inspector of Police, as a part of his investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and drafted an observation mahazar in the presence of mediators. He also took photographs of the scene of offence. So Motor Vehicle Inspector could not give any clue that at whose instance the accident was occurred. In Ex.B2-ceritifed copy of final report, the Inspector of Police, as a part of his investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and drafted an observation mahazar in the presence of mediators. He also took photographs of the scene of offence. He further indicated in his final report that one of the deceased by name, Harikumar, was driving car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the opposite sugar cane load lorry bearing No.AP 04T 0948, as a result sparks ignited from the engine and flames spread all over the car, due to central locking system of the car, the deceased along with his friends were unable to come out from the car and charred to death. He further made finding in his investigation that Chittoor-Kurnool road has been made double road completely, the drivers will have stimulation and will push the accelerator to the maximum extent showing the maximum meter. According to the Inspector of Police, the driver of car drove it in a high speed at the deep curve without observing the opposite coming lorry and dashed, as a result the accident occurred. 19. Admittedly, the driver of car died on the spot due to burnt injuries. 20. The next witness available before the Court is PW.3, who is said to be in the lorry at the time of accident. In the chief examination, he stated that he engaged a lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 0948 for the purpose of transport of sugar cane from his fields to Vani Sugar Factory, Punganur. He boarded the lorry along with load of sugar cane reached at about 3.30 p.m. near Naravari Rahadari turning on Chittoor-Kurnool National Highway in between Piler and Kallur of Pulicherla Mandal. At that time, the driver of lorry driven it in a rash and negligent manner without due care and caution and suddenly on seeing the opposite coming Verna Car bearing No.AP 28 CD 2337, the driver of said lorry applied sudden break but lost control over the lorry and at that moment, the lorry skew to the right side and dashed the opposite coming verna car. Due to which, sparks ignited and fire was caught hold to both the vehicles and inmates of the car died on the spot. PW.3 and driver survived with simple injuries. Due to which, sparks ignited and fire was caught hold to both the vehicles and inmates of the car died on the spot. PW.3 and driver survived with simple injuries. He stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only. At the time of accident, the lorry was in motion and at the place of accident the National Highway was double road. 21. The Inspector of Police, who subsequently promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police examined as RW.3 in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, who is said to be investigated the offence. In his chief examination, he stated that lorry was stationed at the extreme left side margin of the road and there was a turning near the place of accident as per Ex.B1-rough sketch and in a turning of the road if any vehicle comes at high speed on the opposite direction, there is a possibility of hitting lorry or any other opposite vehicle. In his investigation he also examined one Beegala Rajendra (PW.3), who stated before him that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. In the cross examination, it was elicited that there are five eye witnesses to the accident. The inmates of lorry, owner of mango garden stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car. As per his investigation at the time of accident, both the vehicles were on motion. He stated that there is a possibility in difference of running speed with regard to empty lorry and lorry with a load and when he visited the place of accident, both vehicles were on the margins of the road. This is the oral evidence placed before the Tribunal. 22. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence placed before it both oral and documentary evidence found that it is head on collision and accident occurred not only negligent driving of the driver of car but also driver of lorry and it is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of car as well as driver of lorry. 22. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence placed before it both oral and documentary evidence found that it is head on collision and accident occurred not only negligent driving of the driver of car but also driver of lorry and it is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of car as well as driver of lorry. Though claimants claimed that the accident occurred due to negligent act of driver of lorry but the evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that both the drivers are contributed for the accident. 23. This Court also closely gone through the evidence placed on record. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.3, who is owner of sugar cane said to be driver in the lorry stated that there is a negligence on the part of lorry driver. Whereas, driver of lorry, who was examined as RW.2 consistently stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of car. But one thing is proved from the testimony of PW.3 and RW.2 that at the place of accident there was a turning and Ex.B1-rough sketch also supports that fact. At the turning point, when accident occurred both the vehicles dashed each other rather head on collision, which is nothing but a contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. When head on collision taken place, the extent of negligence can be taken as 50-50 because it was case of composite negligence also. 24. As there is a common error committed by both the drivers at the time of accident, the composite negligence is well discussed in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, 2008 (3) TAC 193 (SC), in which it was found that the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the composite negligence held that “'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. Further contended that when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. 25. So from the above legal preposition, this Court is also of the opinion that both the drivers of the lorry and car are jointly liable for the accident as is observed above that the evidence of RW.2 and RW.3 coupled with Ex.A7-copies of photographs clearly show that due to impact of head on collision, both vehicles have burnt and inmates of the car four in number burnt and died on the spot. The manner in which accident occurred coupled with the evidence of PW.3 clearly shows that the accident was occurred due to composite negligence of the lorry driver and driver of car, who also died in the accident. The manner in which accident occurred coupled with the evidence of PW.3 clearly shows that the accident was occurred due to composite negligence of the lorry driver and driver of car, who also died in the accident. Unless both the drivers were negligent, the impact of accident would not be happened and apportioning of both the vehicles, which includes lorry, which admittedly goods carriage vehicle. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a composite negligence of both the drivers. 26. In view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal that as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased Haribabu and the legal representatives of Hari Babu cannot claim compensation needs interference of this Court and the same is set aside. 27. POINT NO.2: Now coming to the point that whether the appellants are entitled for compensation or not, we have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record. 28. In view of our findings in Point No.1, since there is composite negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles and the liability is apportioned between the insurers of both vehicles, the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased driver of car are entitled for compensation to the extent of 50% only against owner and insurer of lorry. 29. Basing on the evidence of PW.2, who was working as Human Resource Executive in Syntel Company, Chennai, Ex.X1-Employment Letter and Ex.X7-pay slip for the month of January, 2011, the Tribunal considered the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.37,736/- p.m. and net salary at Rs.33,822/- p.m and Rs.4,05,864/- p.a. It also considered the age of the deceased as 27 years on the date of accident basing on Ex.A2-C.C. of inquest report and Ex.A3-C.C. of postmortem certificate of the deceased. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘17’. The same can be taken into consideration while calculating the income of the deceased. 30. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the deceased was working as Human Resource Executive in Syntel Company, Chennai. With experience, he would get better opportunities and earn more salary and spent more towards maintenance of his parents with passage of time. 31. The same can be taken into consideration while calculating the income of the deceased. 30. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the deceased was working as Human Resource Executive in Syntel Company, Chennai. With experience, he would get better opportunities and earn more salary and spent more towards maintenance of his parents with passage of time. 31. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC), the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows : 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 32. As per the Pranay Sethi case(referred supra), by fortifying Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 33. In the present case, as per the above said decision 50% of actual salary has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as the deceased was in the age group below the age of 40 years. After adding 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.6,08,796/-p.a.( Rs.4,05,864/- p.a. + Rs.2,02,932/-). 34. In the case on hand, since the deceased is bachelor as per the ratio laid down in the above said Apex Court’s judgment, 50% has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.3,04,398/- p.a. 35. 34. In the case on hand, since the deceased is bachelor as per the ratio laid down in the above said Apex Court’s judgment, 50% has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.3,04,398/- p.a. 35. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., 2017 (3) SCC 315, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. 36. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 27 years is 17. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.51,74,766/- p.a. (Rs.3,04,398/- p.a x 17). 36. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 27 years is 17. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.51,74,766/- p.a. (Rs.3,04,398/- p.a x 17). Apart from that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (referred to supra), an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total, the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.52,04,766/-. 37. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra : S. No. Heads Calculation 1. The annual income of the deceased Rs.4,05,864/- p.a. 2. 50% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.4,05,864/- p.a. + Rs.2,02,932/-) Rs.6,08,796/-p.a. 3. 50% to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.3,04,398/- p.a. 4. Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 17.(Rs.3,04,398/-p.a.x 17) Rs.51,74,766/- p.a. 5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4+5+6) Rs.52,04,766/- 38. Further it is settled law that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal consider that claimants are entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just Compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. This settled position is followed from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 39. POINT NO.3: Even though the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.52,04,766/-, in view of our findings in Point No.1, as there is composite negligence of both the drivers of car and lorry, the appellants 1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased (who is driver of the car) are entitled to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.26,02,383/- against the owner and insurer of lorry jointly and severally. The claim of appellant Nos.3 to 5 being brothers and sisters of the deceased is dismissed as they are not dependents on the deceased. The claim against respondent Nos.3 to 7 also dismissed. 40. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the award dated 12.06.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.205 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati by awarding compensation of Rs.26,02,383/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs two thousand three hundred and eighty three only) to the appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a.(Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 Law Suit SC 742) from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.26,02,383/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs two thousand three hundred and eighty three only) to appellant Nos.1 and 2. The compensation amount awarded to appellant Nos.1 and 2 is apportioned equally. On such deposit, both appellant Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- each and the remaining amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years and thereafter, they are entitled to withdraw the same with accrued interest. The claim of appellant Nos.3 to 5 herein is dismissed. The claim against respondent Nos.3 to 7 is also dismissed. 41. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 42. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.