JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 208 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, who is the second respondent, has filed MACMA No. 2450 of 2012, whereas the claimants in the MVOP has filed MACMA No. 1963 of 2014. As both the appeals arise out of the orders passed in MVOP No. 208 of 2009, both the appeals are disposed of by common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as claimants and respondents, as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of Guvvala Malla Reddy, who died in the accident. The said Guvvala Malla Reddy will hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased." 4. The claimants’ case is that on 06.11.2008 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased was cutting the stones. At about 8.30 a.m., the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 04 X 1505 and 1506 reversed the said vehicle without blowing a horn in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, for which the deceased fell down on the boulders and stones and received grievous injuries to his face, nose, and head and died on the spot. It is not in dispute that the first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. 6. The second respondent filed its counter, submitting that the tractor and trailer were insured with it subject to terms and conditions of the policy and that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the second respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs. B.1 to B.5. 8. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the second respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs. B.1 to B.5. 8. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer, which resulted in the death of the deceased, and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 9. Both learned counsel were heard. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in MACMA No. 1963 of 2014 contended that the tribunal granted less compensation without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record; the tribunal erred in not taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). 11. Learned counsel for the second respondent/appellant in MACMA No. 2450 of 2012 contended that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid licence as on the date of the accident; the tribunal, without perusing Ex.B.1-policy, passed the award against the insurance company. 12. Now the points that arise for consideration are, I. Whether the tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the second respondent/ insurance company? II. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or requires enhancement? 13. After careful reading of the order passed by the tribunal and rival contentions raised by both sides, it can be seen that the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer is not questioned by the second respondent/insurance company in the appeal filed by it, and the second respondent/insurance company has also not disputed the quantum of compensation. 14. 14. Since the manner of the accident is undisputed and the death of the deceased as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident is established by Ex.A.1-certified copy of the F.I.R., Ex.A.2-certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A.3-certified copy of the post-mortem report, and Ex.A.4-certified copy of the charge sheet, the facts relating to the manner of the accident do not need to be referred to. POINT No. I a. To establish its contention, the second respondent/insurance company, got examined R.W.1-T. Soma Raju, the Manager of the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the second respondent/insurance company issued Ex.B.1-policy to the first respondent tractor and trailer under the commercial vehicle class-D policy, which is valid from 20.08.2008 to 19.08.2009. Admittedly, the accident in question occurred on 06.11.2008. It is not in dispute that one J. Rajasekhar Reddy was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. According to R.W.1, the said driver only had a licence to drive LMVs (tractor and trailer), not transport vehicles. It also examined R.W.2-N. Rammohan, Junior Assistant of Regional Transport Office, who testified that J. Rajasekhar Reddy's Ex.B.5-driving licence is in his name and that he is only authorised to drive LMV non-transport vehicles, that is, tractor and trailer. To establish the said fact, the second respondent/insurance company relied on Ex.B.2-driving licence. Ex.B.2 supports the contention of the insurance company. The second respondent/insurance company relied on Ex.B.3-notice to show that it has asked the first respondent to provide the documents, viz., driving licence, R.C.book and policy. Ex.B.4-post acknowledgment was relied on to show the non service of notice. b. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 56 , wherein it was held that, 10……It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 11…. 12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence holder. Thus a permanent licence holder having a effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. That is why the extra premium for trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence holder. Thus a permanent licence holder having a effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it. c. The aforesaid judgment relied on by the claimants clearly applicable to the present facts of the case. The second respondent/ insurance company has placed the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which shows that he is a permanent licence holder having an effective valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is attached for carrying goods. In the present case also, the insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.550/- has been taken for a trailer. Therefore, the insurance policy covers not just the tractor, but also trailer attached to the tractor. d. The Apex Court in a case between Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , at paragraphs 60.2 and 60.4, held that, “60.2. For a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either does not exceed 7500 kg. Would be a light motor vehicle and also a motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. ….. 60.4. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. ….. 60.4. The effect of the amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain a driving licence for transport vehicle of a class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect." e. The same was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santaella Vs. Rajesh and others, A.I.R. 2017 SC 4054, holding that, “Whether the holder of a licence for a light motor vehicle can drive a tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether a separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? We have answered the question that a driver having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of L.M.V. class, and there is no necessity to obtain a separate endorsement since the tractor attached to the trolley was the transport vehicle of the category of a light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer." f. By following principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this court views that the contention raised by the insurance company cannot be accepted with regard to the violation of the terms of the policy. Thus the tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the second respondent/ insurance company. Accordingly, the point is answered. Thus the tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the second respondent/ insurance company. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No. II: a. Regarding the quantum of the compensation amount, as per the case of claimants, the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident. But no date of birth certificate is filed to prove the age. However, the claimants relied on the post-mortem examination report and inquest report to show the deceased's age. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is not disputed. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal and living expenses. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. As such the tribunal is justified in deducting the 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. b. From a reading of the order, the tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 17', as the deceased was aged 33 years, the relevant multiplier applicable for the persons aged between 31 and 35 years is 16 as per Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . The tribunal has considered the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.60/-per day, though it has made observation that as per the judgment of Sarala Verma, the earnings of non earning member can be taken as Rs.100/- per day. According to the case of the claimants, the deceased was a stone cutter in mines and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence is adduced. In such a case, the tribunal is supposed to have fixed the monthly earnings at Rs.3,000/-. The tribunal has not given reasons for not applying the observations made in Sarala Verma’s case, though it referred in its order. c. 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) 16 SCC 680 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. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 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.” d. Here, in this case, the deceased can be considered as self-employee, and as such, this Court views that an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant towards future prospectus. The income, including a future prospectus, arrives at Rs.4,200/- (3,000+1200). Out of which, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and hence, it would come to Rs.2,800/- (4,200 -1,400). The loss of earnings arrived at Rs.5,37,600/-(2,800 x 12 x 16). e. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Apex Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was further held that the sum should be enhanced at 10% every three years. It was held thus in paragraph 61 : "(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 Res.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." f. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , at paragraph 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." f. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , at paragraph 8, the Hon’ble 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. With respect to 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 the parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit." g. The judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10% enhancement of conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed below : Towards loss of dependency Rs.5,37,600/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Parental consortium Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,34,600/- h. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation Rs.6,34,600/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10% enhancement of conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed below : Towards loss of dependency Rs.5,37,600/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Parental consortium Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,34,600/- h. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation Rs.6,34,600/-. 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 (12) A.C.J. 274 (SC) 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.” i. In Ramla v. 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.6,34,600/- exceeding the claim amount. However, the claimants shall pay the requisite court fee over and above the compensation awarded. j. 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 amount 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. 15. As a result, the appeal in MACMA No.2450 of 2012 is dismissed without costs and the appeal in MACMA No.1963 of 2014 is allowed without costs, enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- to an amount of Rs.6,34,600/- (Rupees six lakhs, thirty four thousand, six hundred only), with interest at 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal, subject to payment of the requisite court fee. The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, excluding the amount deposited, if any, within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, excluding the amount deposited, if any, within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares on filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal. The second claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- out of the enhanced compensation amount and the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, is entitled to the remaining enhanced compensation with interest. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.