JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.192 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'),the National Insurance Company Limited rep., by its Divisional Manager, Tirupati, who is the 2nd Respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the Award passed by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on it. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- on account of the death of K. Balakrishnama Naidu @ Balakrishna (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.04.2007 at 11.15 AM on Renigunta-Tirupati main road at Patel Wood Works. 4. It is not in dispute that the 1st claimant is the wife, and the claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. 5. The claimant's case is that on 23.04.2007 at about 11.15 AM, the lorry bearing No.AP 03-U-5612 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Bajaj Scooter bearing No.ATC 6262 from its behind, and then the offending vehicle hit the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP03 S 7830, in which the deceased was proceeding in the same direction, resulting in the deceased and two others who were travelling in Bajaj scooter being severely injured and all of them were shifted to the casualty of Sri Venkateswara Ramanarayan Ruia Government General Hospital, Tirupati and there the deceased and two others succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. 6. The first Respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte. 7. The 2nd Respondent filed a counter, admitting the accident and denied the other averments and contended that, as per the version in the claim petition, three vehicles were involved in the accident. The claimants filed the case against the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle and not impleaded the owner and insurer of the other two vehicles. The 2nd Respondent reliably learnt that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj Scooter's rider and the rider of the Honda motorcycle. The claimants filed the case against the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle and not impleaded the owner and insurer of the other two vehicles. The 2nd Respondent reliably learnt that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj Scooter's rider and the rider of the Honda motorcycle. Hence, the owner and insurance companies of both vehicles are liable to pay the compensation. In the event of awarding compensation, contributory negligence is on the part of the deceased also to be considered. The compensation claimed is excessive. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.4. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and got marked Ex.B.1 copy of the policy by consent. 9. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver and on account of which the deceased died and granted compensation of Rs.5,81,952/- with interest at 6 % p.a., against the respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant /second Respondent contends that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident took place between three vehicles; the Tribunal failed to see that when the claim petition is filed under section 163-A of M.V. Act, only Rs.9,500/- can be awarded towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.33,000/-; the Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle is driven by its cleaner, who had no driving licence; the Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle's driver is charge-sheeted under section 181 of M.V. Act, for not possessing any driving licence; the Tribunal failed to see that policy issued to the offending vehicle is passenger-carrying commercial vehicle, but R.C. says it is a good carrying vehicle and permission is also for goods carrying purpose, and hence there is a permit violation. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the Tribunal's findings and observations. 13. Now the points for consideration are, I. Is the Tribunal not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company? II. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the Tribunal's findings and observations. 13. Now the points for consideration are, I. Is the Tribunal not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company? II. Is the compensation fixed by the Tribunal just and reasonable, and is it required to be enhanced as contended by the appellants despite the non-filing of an appeal of cross-objections against the Award passed by the Tribunal? POINT No. I: A. The finding of the Tribunal, while answering issue No.1, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-5612 and the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident on 23.04.2007 at 11.15 AM in question, which is not challenged by the insurance company in this appeal also. It is also evident by Ex.A1 – Certified Copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2 – Certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A3 – Certified copy of Post-mortem certificate and Ex.A4 – Certified copy of charge sheet. The main grievance of the appellant is that at the time of the accident, the cleaner drove the offending vehicle and the owner of the vehicle deliberately and knowing fully well handed over the vehicle to the cleaner, and thereby, there is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. B. The relationship among the claimants is not in dispute. The 1st petitioner is the wife, and the 2nd and 3rd are the children of the deceased. The 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1. In the cross-examination held on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, PW.1 categorically stated that she did not witness the accident. Thus, much significance cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.1 regarding the manner of the accident. She denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident, the cleaner, who was not authorized to drive, drove the offending vehicle. C. As seen from the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, both parties have not examined eyewitnesses to establish the accident. D. It would also be essential to note the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021 A.C.J. 17 (S.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, "the standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. D. It would also be essential to note the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021 A.C.J. 17 (S.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, "the standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claims cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial, but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true". E. Considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, I appreciate the contention raised by both parties. Respondents place no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In the case of K. Rajani and others Vs. M. Satyanarayana Goud and others, 2015 ACJ 797 , the Hon’ble High Court is pleased to observe that : "when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false". F. In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows : “It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”. G. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the offending vehicle’s bus driver without conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the 1st Respondent. H. In a proceeding under the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the 1st Respondent. H. In a proceeding under the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. The document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is by now well settled that even F.I.R. or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of the happening of the accident. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the mode and manner of happening. I. The claimants relied on the Ex.A1 report, which shows that the accident occurred on 23.04.2007 at 11.15 AM and the information received at Noon on the same day. As per Ex.A1 report, the driver of the Tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 5612 caused the accident because of his rash and negligent driving. Ex.A4 charge sheet shows that the accused, the lorry cleaner, has driven the lorry bearing No.AP 03 U 5612 rashly and negligently dashed against the Scooter bearing No.ATC 6262 from its behind and then the lorry hit against Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 S7830 proceeding in the same direction, resulting in K. Ramesh Reddy (D3), K. Pradeep Kumar (D1), the rider and pillion rider of the Scooter and K. Balakrishna Reddy (D2), the rider of Yamaha Motorcycle sustained severe injuries of them, and K.Pradeep Kumar (D1) died on the spot, D2 and D3 got shifted to Tirupathi for treatment, D2 succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 12.45 AM, and K. Ramesh Reddy (D3) succumbed to injuries on the same day at 01.00 PM while undergoing treatment in S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi. J. Based on the observations and findings, the insurance company contends that the Tribunal should have exonerated the insurance company from liability as the cleaner of the offending vehicle caused the accident. K. The normal rule is for the petitioners to prove the negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the petitioner as the true cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the Respondent, who caused it. K. The normal rule is for the petitioners to prove the negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the petitioner as the true cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the Respondent, who caused it. It will then be for the Respondent to establish the accident due to some other cause than his negligence. The insurance company did not choose to examine the driver of the lorry; the driver of the lorry involved in the accident did not enter the box to explain the manner of the accident. L. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court views that the Tribunal has perfectly appreciated the evidence on record and findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver. As already observed, the cleaner of the offending vehicle caused the accident by driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. There is a clear recital in the charge sheet that the accused is the cleaner of the lorry bearing registration No.AP03U5612 drove the vehicle without a valid driving license and exhibited rashness and negligence while driving the same vehicle, resulting in the death of three persons. M. Both parties have not placed any oral evidence regarding the manner of the accident; they relied on the charge sheet to support their case. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the cleaner drove the offending vehicle at the time of the accident without a valid driving license. Despite service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest the proceedings of M.V.O.P. and this appeal. It also stated in the charge sheet that after the sale of Tomatos at Srikalahasti, the driver of the lorry LW.13 drove the lorry up to Yerpedu. Then he stopped the lorry by the side of the road and slept in his lorry, and the accused, who was the cleaner of the lorry, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. N. In the case of Skandia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Then he stopped the lorry by the side of the road and slept in his lorry, and the accused, who was the cleaner of the lorry, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. N. In the case of Skandia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), the Apex Court held that : “On a true interpretation of the relevant clause which in interpretation is at peace with the conscience of Section 96, the condition excluding driving by a person not duly licensed is not absolute, and the promisor is absolved once it is shown that he has done everything in his power to keep, honour, andfulfil the promise and he is not guilty of a deliberate breach. It was further held that "unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach, the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise. In the case of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, 1996 (5) SCC 21 = 1996 ACJ 1044 , the Apex Court had gone to the extent of laying down that technical objection should not be allowed to be raised by the Insurance Company. In that case, the person driving the vehicle was not even a driver and was a cleaner, who was not holding any licence, but the actual driver, who had a valid driving licence, had authorized him to drive the vehicle. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy had been established and observed that : "In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed based on the authority of the driver duly authorized to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious that the right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious that the right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act." O. The Apex Court further observed that : "The whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in the normal course, they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of Accidents Claims Tribunal for the realization of such amount by the sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. …. We affirm and reiterate the statement of law laid down in the above case. We may also state that without the knowledge of the insured, if by driver's acts or omission, others meddle with the vehicle and cause an accident, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan (supra). As in the facts of the present case, the appellant shall be deemed to be liable to pay compensation applying the principle of vicarious liability because the accident took place when the act authorized was being performed in a mode which may not be proper but was directly connected within the course of employment, sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act shall come into play, and the insurance company shall be deemed to be the judgment debtor, so far claim made by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased is concerned. are Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, and the orders of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court are modified where only the appellant has been held to be liable to pay the compensation and the respondent insurance company has been absolved of the liability. The respondent insurance company shall be jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation to the claimants.” P. In the light of the above settled legal position, this Court views that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, this point is answered. Point No. II : A. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.2 K. Madhusudhan and PW.3 – K. Srinivasa Reddy and held that the deceased Balakrishna worked as a Forest Mazborr and the petitioner relied on Ex.A6 Salary Certificate. PW.3 produced Ex.X1 salary certificate considering the salary certificates of the deceased; the Tribunal held that the deceased was getting Rs.5616.90/- towards net salary. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, it has not awarded a future prospectus. This court inclined to consider the monthly earnings at Rs.5616.90 rounded to Rs.5,617/-. Based on the inquest report and postmortem certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal observed that the age of the deceased was 51' years at the time of the accident. The said findings of the Tribunal are not disputed by either party. B. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned, the Apex Court, in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , at paragraph 61, held that, (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the deceased's income towards prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40, should be made. The addition should be 30% if 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 actual 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 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary computation method. The established income means the income minus the tax component. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary computation method. The established income means the income minus the tax component. C. In this case, the deceased had a permanent job, and as such, this Court views an additional 15% of the established income should be warranted towards future prospects. The monthly earnings, including future prospects, arrive at Rs.6,460/- (5,617 + 843). Following the same, the annual earnings of the deceased, including a future prospectus, can be assessed at Rs.77,520/- (Rs.6,460 x 12). D. Out of which, where the deceased is a married person, and the dependants are 3 in number, 1/3rd of the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be made, i.e. Rs.25,840/- (77,520 X 1/3rd) and thereby, the contribution of the earnings of the deceased towards the family members would arrive at an amount of Rs.51,680/- (77,520- 25,840). To arrive at the loss of earnings, the appropriate multiplier 11' for the age groups of 51 to 55 as specified by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 is applied and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.5,68,480/- (51,680 X 11). E. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the Apex Court 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 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 will be awarded in a death case. 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 will 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. H. In all, the claimants, wife and children, and the mother of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as detailed below : Towards loss of dependency Rs.5,68,480/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Towards spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Towards parental consortium Rs.88,000/- Total Rs.7,33,480/- I. After considering the material on record, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,33,480/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. J. The learned Counsel for the claimants contends that the quantum of compensation Awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side; the Court has the power to enhance the compensation, even though the claimant had not filed any cross objection against the Award seeking higher compensation. In support of the said contention he relied on Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Uma and others, 2016 ACJ 2238 , he also relied on Surekha Vs. In support of the said contention he relied on Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Uma and others, 2016 ACJ 2238 , he also relied on Surekha Vs. Santhosh, (S.C.), [Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 = (SC) 276 : 2021 (1) ACC 653 ], it was held by the Apex Court that, “This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the High court of judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.2564 of 2016, whereby the High Court, even though agreed with the stand of the appellants that just compensation amount ought to be Rs.49,85,376/- (Forty-Nine Lakh eighty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Six Only), however, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal”. K. In a decision reported by Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others, V. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, [(5) 2015 (1) An.WR 755 (S.C.)= (2015) 4 SCC 237 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,24,000/-as against the same, claimants have not filed any appeal. As against the Award passed by the Tribunal when the claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Nasir and another and Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., As against the Award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation”. L. In light of the settled legal position, this Court finds force in the submissions of the Counsel for the claimants. Given the same, this Court views that even though the claimants had not filed any cross objection against the Award seeking higher compensation, they are entitled to the compensation as arrived at by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the compensation shall be awarded to respondents 1 to 3. Thus, the point is answered. 15. Given the same, this Court views that even though the claimants had not filed any cross objection against the Award seeking higher compensation, they are entitled to the compensation as arrived at by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the compensation shall be awarded to respondents 1 to 3. Thus, the point is answered. 15. As a result, (i) the appeal is dismissed, without costs. However, the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.7,33,480/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization. (ii) the appellant/insurer and the 4th Respondent in the appeal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and they are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs within one month from the date of receipt of the Judgment; (iii) on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the 1st petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation. (iv) The apportionment made by the Tribunal regarding compensation awarded by it holds good. (v) The amount paid by the appellant/2nd respondent/insurer earlier towards the awarded amounts shall be given in credit; 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.