JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode and Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V Act”) was filed by the United Insurance Company Limited, challenging the award dated 24.08.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 212 of 2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the Tribunal”). 3. The respondents in appeal 1 to 5 are the claimants and respondent No. 6 is the owner of the auto. 4. The claimants respondents filed M.V.O.P. No. 212 of 2008 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of M. Suresh Babu. He was working as Assistant Engineer at Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kalamalla during July, 2006. He was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.19,000/- per month. On 14.07.2006 Suresh Babu and his elder brother Anjaneyulu were proceeding towards Rajeev Circle, Proddatur, on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle around 11.00 p.m. when they reached the Church area located near Subbireddi Kottalu, an auto AP 07-T 8743 which belonged to the 6th respondent being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle. He sustained severe injuries; was admitted in Government hospital and succumbed to injuries on the way while shifting to another hospital, on 15.07.2006 at about 3.00 a.m. The auto was insured with United India Insurance Company, the appellant. 5. The respondent No. 6-owner was set ex-parte. 6. The insurance company filed written statement. It was submitted inter alia that the deceased had no valid driving license to drive the motor cycle. The alleged collision with auto was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. The fitness certificate of the auto expired on 08.06.2006. It was not renewed. The driver of the auto had also no valid driving license. The claimants were not entitled for any compensation and if at all the owner was alone liable to pay. Insurance also pleaded that the claim was highly excessive. The first claimant widow of Suresh Babu got job on compassionate ground and was drawing monthly salary. 7. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. The claimants were not entitled for any compensation and if at all the owner was alone liable to pay. Insurance also pleaded that the claim was highly excessive. The first claimant widow of Suresh Babu got job on compassionate ground and was drawing monthly salary. 7. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased died in a motor accident that occurred on 14.07.2006 at 10.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AP 07-T-8743 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed? 3. To what relief? 8. For evidence the claimants examined PW-1 M. Indra Kumari and PW-2 Ramanjaneyulu. PW-2 is the brother of the deceased and had accompanied the deceased. In documentary evidence, they marked Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R in Crime No. 91 of 2006 of Proddatur III Town Police Station, Ex.A.2 certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of Postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.5 certified copy of altered FIR in Crime No. 91 of 2006, Ex.A.6 Xerox copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.7 salary certificate of deceased for Rs.18,473/- Ex.A.8 service certificate issued by A.P. GENCO, Ex.A.9 original driving license of the deceased. 9. The insurance company examined RW-1 M. Mallikarjuna, Junior Assistant and got marked Ex.X.1 authorizationletter, Ex.X.2 extract of driving license of Mohammed Haji Shaik, Ex.X.3 extract of B. Register of Ve3hicle bearing No. AP 07-8743, Ex.X.4 fitness certificate history up to 08.06.2006. 10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. There was no negligence on the part of the deceased. So there was no contributory negligence. It also recorded that the deceased had valid driving license. Ex.A.9 issued on 29.01.1996 and valid till 07.04.2023 effective on the date of accident. 11. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the claimants were entitled for compensation. It recorded that the age of the deceased was 33 years. He was a permanent employee and had joined as Sub Engineer on 06.12.1996 at Nagarjuna Sagar Power House and worked up to 14.07.2006 as Additional Assistant Engineer at Rayalaseema Thermal Power Station till his death. Based on the salary certificate Ex.A.7, the Tribunal determined the gross salary in June, 2006 as Rs.18,473/- and the net salary Rs.11,415/-. He was a permanent employee and had joined as Sub Engineer on 06.12.1996 at Nagarjuna Sagar Power House and worked up to 14.07.2006 as Additional Assistant Engineer at Rayalaseema Thermal Power Station till his death. Based on the salary certificate Ex.A.7, the Tribunal determined the gross salary in June, 2006 as Rs.18,473/- and the net salary Rs.11,415/-. It deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. 50% of the income was added towards future prospects. The multiplier of “16” was applied to the age group of 31 to 35. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.32,88,386/- was determined. Additionally, it added Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate to the 1st claimant widow and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection to the children. The Tribunal determined in total Rs.33,03,384/-. But, it restricted the award to Rs.30,00,000/- observing that the 1st respondent claimants had restricted their claim to Rs.30,00,000/- only. On such amount it awarded 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of petition till realization, directing the insurance company and 6th respondent to pay providing further that the appellant-insurance company can recover the entire amount from 6th respondent. The Tribunal allowed with cost and advocate fee of Rs.5,000/-. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st claimant/1st respondent herein, the widow of the deceased was given compassionate appointment on the death of Suresh Babu and was drawing monthly salary. So, the claimants were not entitled for any compensation under the M.V. Act and even if they were held entitled, the monthly salary of the widow should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining compensation amount. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of the auto had no valid driving license and the fitness term had also expired. He submitted that under such circumstances, if the claimants were held entitled for compensation, the Tribunal ought to have passed order for payment by the insurance company and for recovery of such amount from the owner of the auto. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submitted that the claimants being five in number, the deduction towards personal expenses at the rate of 1/3rd is not correct. It should be 1/4th. He further submitted that the compassionate appointment to the widow and monthly salary on account of such appointment have no relevance and deserve no consideration for the compensation under the M.V. Act. 15. It should be 1/4th. He further submitted that the compassionate appointment to the widow and monthly salary on account of such appointment have no relevance and deserve no consideration for the compensation under the M.V. Act. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further submitted that once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation more than the amount they claimed the award could not be restricted to the claimed amount only. 16. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 17. So far as the submission of the appellant’s counsel that, the driver of the auto was not having valid driving license and the fitness, the Tribunal has observed that the license of the driver of the auto was to drive goods vehicle AP 07-T-8743 non transport, but he was driving an auto transport. There was deviation in respect of terms of policy. The driver had no valid driving license to drive the auto transport. It further observed that the fitness certificate of the auto was valid upto 08.06.2006. The accident occurred on 14.07.2006. The auto had no valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has while passing the award, provided that the insurance company can recover the awarded amount from the 6th respondent, owner, by filing execution petition. So, on this aspect, we do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant’s counsel. 18. The points that arise for our consideration are as under: (A) Whether the claimants being entitled to just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act the compensation amount can be restricted to the amount claimed in the petition? (B) Whether the compassionate appointment given to the widow of the deceased and her monthly salary, have any relevance in determination of the compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act? (C) To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled as a just and fair compensation? POINT-A: 19. It is settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation under M.V. Act. (C) To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled as a just and fair compensation? POINT-A: 19. It is settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation under M.V. Act. It is also well settled that if the claimants make a claim of specified amount as compensation but while determining the compensation, the Tribunal or court comes to the conclusion that they are entitled for higher amount than the claimed one, it being a just compensation, they are to be given the said amount and it cannot be restricted to the amount claimed in the petition. In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 14 SCC 712 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, give paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants. Para No. 9 in N. Jayasree (supra) reads as under: 09. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) give paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants. 20. In Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467 where the High Court of Bombay though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just compensation amount ought to be Rs.49,85,376/- declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in Para-2 as under: 2. 20. In Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467 where the High Court of Bombay though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just compensation amount ought to be Rs.49,85,376/- declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in Para-2 as under: 2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper-technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants. 21. In Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1012 the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same principle. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Susubeli Bapuji and Others (M.A.C.M.A. No. 2139 of 2017 decided on 30.07.2024), a Coordinate Bench of this Court also held in consideration of aforesaid judgment as under: “19. From the aforesaid judgments it is settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation. Endeavour should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of: (a) that they have not preferred any appeal for enhancement nor filed any cross objection in the appeal filed by the owner/Insurance company. (b) that even after they accepted the amount in execution proceedings they can claim the just compensation in the proper proceedings. (c) that the amount of compensation claimed in their petition, is less than the amount of the compensation determined by the Tribunal/Court.” 22. The Tribunal is not justified in restricting the compensation to the amount claimed by the claimants. Once it is found by court/Tribunal that the claimants are entitled for higher amount, the same cannot be restricted to the claimed amount. We would determine the just and fair compensation while considering point. POINT-B: 23. So far as the submission that the widow claimant was given compassionate appointment and was receiving salary, is concerned, we do not find any force in such submission which deserves outright rejection. 24. It is well settled in law that any other benefit given or obtained under different claims or under the statutes, shall have no adverse impact on the grant of compensation under the M.V. Act. 25. 24. It is well settled in law that any other benefit given or obtained under different claims or under the statutes, shall have no adverse impact on the grant of compensation under the M.V. Act. 25. In Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the compassionate appointment cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantage” that comes under the periphery of the M.V. Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the M.V. Act. 26. In Sebastiani Lakra and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2018 SC 2079 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all the amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death. POINT-C: 27. We found force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that considering the number of the dependents being five, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased would have been 1/4th and not 1/3rd, the Tribunal in this respect acted illegally. In Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 30 as under: “30. In Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 30 as under: “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 Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that 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, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 28. We are of the further view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is not as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . We cannot ignore this aspect while considering just and fair compensation. 29. Accordingly, under the heads of Loss of Consortium for five claimants, we allow 5 x 40,000/- = Rs. 2,00,000/- for Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- and for Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- with an increase of 20% thereon, under these heads, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others and Smt Anjali (supra). 30. The amount of just compensation would come to as follows: S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income (after deducting taxes) Rs. 17,127/- x 12 = Rs. 2,05,524/- 2. Future Prospects (50% of the Income) as awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,02,762/- Total = Rs. 3,08,286/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/4th of income) Rs. 77,071/- 4. Total income Rs. 2,31,215/- 5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 35 years i.e. 16 x 2,31,215/- = Rs. 36,99,440/- 6. Conventional Heads: (With an increase of 20% in total) (i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 39,75,440/- INTEREST: 31. 77,071/- 4. Total income Rs. 2,31,215/- 5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 35 years i.e. 16 x 2,31,215/- = Rs. 36,99,440/- 6. Conventional Heads: (With an increase of 20% in total) (i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 39,75,440/- INTEREST: 31. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 , the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 32. Accordingly, on the amount as determined, the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 33. The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal. 34. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award. Failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. 35. The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents 1 to 5, but granting just compensation to the claimants-respondents 1 to 5 as aforesaid. 36. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.