JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. The appeal in MACMA No. 1849/2012 is preferred by the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore, challenging the order dated 26.03.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 254/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Nellore, wherein the Tribunal partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,71,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Chillara Gopalakrishna Murthy in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The appeal in MACMA No. 906/2016 is preferred by the claimants/petitioners, challenging the same order and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the Tribunal. 4. As seen from the record, the claim petition was filed U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the death of Chillara Gopalakrishna Murthy, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.05.2005. 5. The facts would show that on 07.05.2005 the deceased Chillara Gopalakrishna Murthy and two others along with Ch. Sridhar Reddy going to Tirupati in a Toyota Innova Car bearing No. AP-26N-23 at about 04.30 p.m. When the said car was reached 9 K.M. Stone on Srikalahasti-Naidupet Road within Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District, Sridhar Reddy driving the car, gave signal to the front proceeding tanker for overtaking and after receiving signals from him, Sridhar Reddy was crossing the said tanker; At that time, a lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in high sped, came to the extreme right side of the road, dashed the Toyota Car; Both the drivers are negligent in causing the accident, resulting the deceased and two others and also Sridhar Reddy in the car died on the spot. The 3rd respondent is wife of Sridhar Reddy who is owner cum driver of the car; The deceased was aged 48 years, working as Computer Operator-cum-Accountant in Surya Marketing Company, Nellore and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month; Due to the sudden and premature death of deceased, the claimants have lost their sole bread winner. 6. The 3rd respondent is wife of Sridhar Reddy who is owner cum driver of the car; The deceased was aged 48 years, working as Computer Operator-cum-Accountant in Surya Marketing Company, Nellore and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month; Due to the sudden and premature death of deceased, the claimants have lost their sole bread winner. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore, filed counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation; It contended that the driver of Toyota Innova Car caused the accident while crossing the vehicle which was proceeding in front of it without observing traffic rules; The driver of the 1st respondent is not negligent in causing the accident, as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and that the driver of 3rd respondent alone is negligent in causing the accident. 7. The 1st respondent i.e. owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. 8. The 3rd respondent filed counter, denying the material allegations in the claim petition, and contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of Toyota Car bearing No. AP-26N-23. The negligence was only on the part of driver of lorry bearing No. OR 19A 1911; One Gandham Penchalayya R/o Poyya village, Thottambedu Mandal witnessed the accident and filed complaint in C.C. No. 279/2005 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against the driver of lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911. 9. The 4th respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Nellore filed counter, with similar contentions raised by the 3rd respondent; Further contended that there is no valid insurance policy and valid driving license to the driver of car, and the said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911, since the driver of car gave signal to front proceeding tanker and offending lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911 which was coming in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed the car, and caused the accident, resulting the death of deceased and others on the spot. The 4th respondent denied its liability by way of additional counter contending that as per policy conditions of the car, the inmates are not covered under the said policy, since no premium for inmates was collected to cover the liability of the inmates of the car. 10. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the death of deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing No. AP-26N-23 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911 or due to fault of both the drivers? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, against whom? 3. To what relief? 11. To substantiate claim, the claimants examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of 2nd respondent, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4, except marking Ex.B-3 copy of insurance policy by the 4th respondent. 12. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, evidence of RW-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of both drivers of Toyota Innova Car bearing No. AP-26N-23 and lorry bearing No. OR-19A-1911 and their contributory negligence is @ 50% each, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6 and evidence of RW-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,71,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents No. 1 to 4, out of which, the respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay half of the awarded compensation amount, and the respondents No. 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining half of the awarded compensation amount. 13. The claimants, who are appellants in MACMA No. 906/2016 contend that the Tribunal erroneously disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A-4 placed by the claimants though it would establish the salary of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. 13. The claimants, who are appellants in MACMA No. 906/2016 contend that the Tribunal erroneously disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A-4 placed by the claimants though it would establish the salary of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. The other contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 100/- only per day, though the deceased was working as Computer Operator-cum-Accountant at the time of death, and therefore, the Tribunal failed to award just compensation entitled by the claimants. They also contended that Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW-3 and came to an erroneous opinion that both drivers are responsible for the accident and fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of lorry driver as well as the deceased driver of the Toyota Innova Car. 14. The contention of the appellant in MACMA No. 1849/2012, i.e. 2nd respondent that as per the report filed by the police, the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car, who also died in the accident, but the Tribunal erroneously fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of driver of the lorry, and in that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent shall be exonerated from liability. 15. In the light of the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in both the appeals are as under: 1. Who is responsible for the accident? Whether the driver of the Toyota Innova Car or driver of the lorry; or both the drivers responsible? 2. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation? 3. To what relief? 16. POINT No. 1: The case of the claimants is that on 07.05.2005, the deceased along with two others were travelling in a Toyota Innova Car bearing No. AP-26N-23 driven by Mr. Ch. Sridhar Reddy, who is husband of the 3rd respondent, for going to Tirupathi; While so, at about 04.30 p.m. car was reached a place near 9 K.M. stone on Srikalahasti - Naidupet Road. Ch. Sridhar Reddy, who is husband of the 3rd respondent, for going to Tirupathi; While so, at about 04.30 p.m. car was reached a place near 9 K.M. stone on Srikalahasti - Naidupet Road. Sridhar Reddy intends to overtake a tanker lorry proceeding in front of the car; He gave signals, the driver of the tanker lorry also gave signals allowing Sridhar Reddy to overtake the tanker lorry; Therefore, Sridhar Reddy was crossing the tanker lorry; Suddenly, the lorry bearing No. OR-11A-1911 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed on the extreme right side of the road, and dashed the Toyota Innova Car bearing No. AP-26N-23, as a result, the deceased along with two others and Sridhar Reddy died on the spot. 17. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the driver of the 3rd respondent is negligent in causing the accident i.e. driver of the Toyota Car bearing No. AP-26N-23, as driver of the Innova Car, while crossing the tanker which was proceeding in front of it, did not observe traffic rules. 18. The contention of the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent is that Mr.Sridhar Reddy gave signal to the front proceeding vehicle i.e. tanker and after receiving signal from the tanker allowing him to cross the tanker, he was crossing the tanker, and at that juncture, the lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in high speed to the extreme side of the road and dashed the car. It is pertinent to note down that the defence of the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent is in line with the case of the claimants. Further, the 3rd respondent in the counter stated that one Mr. Gandham Penchalayya (PW-3) a resident of Poyya village of Thottambedu Mandal witnessed the accident, and he filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 279/2005 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi against the lorry driver for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 19. The claimants in support of their case about the way in which the accident occurred have examined PW-3 i.e. Gandham Penchalayya, stating that he is an eye witness to the accident. At the same time, the claimants in their evidence also filed copy of FIR in Cr. 19. The claimants in support of their case about the way in which the accident occurred have examined PW-3 i.e. Gandham Penchalayya, stating that he is an eye witness to the accident. At the same time, the claimants in their evidence also filed copy of FIR in Cr. No. 36/2005 of Thottambedu Police Station, Chittoor District, which was registered by the police basing on a statement made by one Mr. G. Pushpa Raj an eye witness to the accident. The claimants also filed a copy of private complaint filed in C.C. No. 279/2005 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. The story in both documents is contradictory. 20. The 2nd respondent filed a copy of final report filed by the police basing on Ex.A-1 FIR, and it was marked as Ex.B-2. 21. PW-1 is none other than the wife of the deceased, and the 1st claimant in the case. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness to the accident. The claimants examined PW-3 stating that he is an eye witness to the accident. But as per Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, one Mr. G. Pushpa Raj as a witness to the accident gave a statement to the police about accident. Ex.B-2 copy of final report does not disclose the name of PW-3 as witness, much less eye witness. 22. Ex.B-2 is a final report filed by the Thottambedu Police opining that their investigation would establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Innova Car. It discloses that the driver of the Toyota Innova car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and made attempt to overtake the tanker lorry proceeding in front of the car, without noticing that the lorry is coming in opposite side, he could not control the car and dashed the proceeding tanker lorry and car turtle down, and as a result, the persons travelling including the driver sustained injuries and died in the accident. Whereas PW-3 version is different. Whereas PW-3 version is different. He deposed that the driver of the car gave signals to the driver of the tanker lorry to allow him to overtake the tanker lorry, then the driver of the tanker lorry gave reply signals allowing him to overtake the tanker lorry and then, the car driver was proceeding on the right side of the tanker lorry, and all of a sudden, the lorry came extreme right side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Toyota Innova Car. PW-3 in the cross-examination deposed that two weeks after the accident, he reported the matter to the police, and he filed private complaint before the Court, and he does not know its details and he also does not know the contents of his chief-examination affidavit, and he is an illiterate person, and he does not know letters or numbers and one K.V. Subba Rao, advocate prepared the affidavit etc. 23. The claimants nor the Insurance Company for the reasons known to them did not choose to examine the driver of the tanker lorry, which is a third vehicle to the accident. The 3rd respondent and 4th respondent, who are contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver, also did not choose to examine the driver of the tanker lorry. They also did not choose to examine the driver of the lorry to speak about the way in which the accident occurred. None of the parties filed the scene observation report or rough sketch prepared by the police in Cr. No. 36/2005. 24. RW-1 is an employee of the appellant/Insurance Company is also not an eye witness to the accident. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the accident. 25. However, facts on record placed by both sides, would establish one fact that the accident occurred when car was proceeding on the right side of the tanker while overtaking the tanker, and at that juncture, lorry came in opposite direction in front of the car, and therefore, the accident occurred. These circumstances, speak for themselves and establish that both the drivers i.e. driver of the car, as well as the driver of the lorry were equally negligent for the accident. Hence, fixing 50% of contributory negligence on the part of both drivers by the Tribunal cannot be held as an erroneous finding. These circumstances, speak for themselves and establish that both the drivers i.e. driver of the car, as well as the driver of the lorry were equally negligent for the accident. Hence, fixing 50% of contributory negligence on the part of both drivers by the Tribunal cannot be held as an erroneous finding. Accordingly, this point is answered. 26. POINT No. 2: The claimants contend that the deceased was working as a Computer Operator-cum-Accountant in Surya Marketing Company, Nellore and was receiving an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month towards salary. The claimants examined PW-2 Mr. Bellam Srinivasulu and filed Ex.A-4 salary certificate issued by Surya Marketing Company, Nellore. The Tribunal did not rely on the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.A-4, on the ground that Ex.A-4 was not issued by PW-2 and no record relating to Ex.A-4 is produced before the Tribunal by the person, who issued Ex.A-4, and further, there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal that PW-2 is working in Surya Marketing Company, Nellore. 27. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect, as the claimants failed to prove the contents of Ex.A-4 salary certificate by examining the author of the document, and by producing supporting documents establishing that the amount mentioned in Ex.A-4 was actually paid to the deceased, as salary. 28. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a Computer Operator-cum-Accountant in Surya Marketing Company at Nellore. The accident occurred in the year 2005. Nellore is one of the big cities in Andhra Pradesh State. The Tribunal did not consider these facts and fixed at Rs. 100/- only per day. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that amount is fixed by the Tribunal as daily income of the deceased is low. Considering the place of his working i.e. Nellore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it can be fixed at Rs. 150/- per day. The monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 150 x 30 = Rs. 4,500/-. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/-. There are five dependents in the case, therefore, ¼ of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 150/- per day. The monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 150 x 30 = Rs. 4,500/-. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/-. There are five dependents in the case, therefore, ¼ of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased as per Ex.A-6 Pan Card filed by the claimants was rightly considered by the Tribunal is 50 years, since the date of birth in the Pan Card was mentioned as 17.10.1954 29. 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 ‘13’ for the persons in the age group of 46 to 50 years. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 40,500 x 13 = Rs. 5,26,500/-. 30. 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. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards spouse consortium to the 1st claimant and the total would be Rs. 70,000/-. 31. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down that as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, 2018 ACJ 2782 the deceased being the father of the claimants No. 2 and 3, who are minors at the time of the accident, the claimants No. 2 and 3 can be awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, and the total would be Rs. 80,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation entitled by the claimants would be Rs. 5,26,500 + 70,000 + 80,000 = Rs. 6,76,500/- towards just compensation, instead of Rs. 3,71,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and Others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and Others, 2022 Live Law (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. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and Others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and Others, 2022 Live Law (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. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs. 6,00,000/- the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs. 6,76,500/-. 33. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 34. POINT No. 3: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No. 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the appeal, filed by the claimants, modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal as under..... 35. In the result, the appeal in MACMA No. 906/2016 filed by the claimants is allowed, by modifying the order dated 26.03.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 254/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Nellore, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,76,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs, Seventy Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, instead of Rs. 3,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are jointly and several liable to pay the compensation amount, in which the respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount, which would be Rs. 3,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are jointly and several liable to pay the compensation amount, in which the respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount, which would be Rs. 3,38,250/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation and the respondents No. 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount, which would be Rs. 3,38,250/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. Consequently, the appeal in MACMA No. 1849/2012 filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 37. The 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore, is directed to deposit the 50% of the compensation amount, which would be Rs. 3,38,250/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty only) awarded in MACMA No. 906/2016 along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore, already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. 38. The 4th respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Nellore, is directed to deposit the 50% of the compensation amount, which would be Rs. 3,38,250/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty only) awarded in MACMA No. 906/2016 along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 4th respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Nellore, already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. 39. On such deposit, the claimants No. 2 to 5, who are appellants in MACMA No. 906/2016 are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, along with the accrued interest thereon, and the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 39. On such deposit, the claimants No. 2 to 5, who are appellants in MACMA No. 906/2016 are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, along with the accrued interest thereon, and the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,76,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Seventy Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with the accrued interest thereon. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.