JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri T.Sri Charan, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 2. The appeal is directed by the claimants against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.134/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl.District Judge, Guntur. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 4. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased filed claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their son Dasari Charles Bobby in a motor vehicle accident. 5. The case of the claimants is that on 29.04.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased Dasari Charles Bobby and his friend boarded an auto bearing No.AP 07Y 2169 (offending vehicle) to go to Guntur; they reached a place near Crane Nut Powder Company at Potturu village; the driver of auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed dead buffaloes; as a result, the auto turned turtle, the deceased and his friend sustained grievous injuries; the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, and later to Life Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur; after three days, he succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment; Taluk Police, Guntur, registered a case in Cr.No.101/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto; police investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the auto; the deceased was aged 27 years, working as office boy in Erudite Coaching Centre, Arundelpet, Guntur, and earning Rs.1,500/- per month at that time. Hence, the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition. 6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. Hence, the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition. 6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The 2nd respondent/insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed written statement and additional written statement; while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation contended that the driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle; the deceased is an unauthorised passenger boarded the goods vehicle; the 1st respondent thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and form which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. Before the learned Tribunal two witnesses were examined by the claimants and six documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6. One witness was examined by the 2nd respondent and two documents were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. 10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed by the claimants through P.Ws-1 and 2, copy of FIR and police report (charge sheet) vide Exs.A-1 and A-2, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding is not challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle or by the insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company. 11. The claimants filed the appeal contending that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation for the death of their son caused in motor vehicle accident, and also on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to direct the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. 12. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was aged 27 years at the material point in time i.e., at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal applied multiplier 11', considering the age of his parents, instead of age of the deceased and therefore, awarded compensation on lower side. He would further submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 1) National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 . 2) Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, 2017 (4) SCC 796 . 3) Anu Bhanvara etc., Vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (5) ALD SC 287. Pay and recovery principle may be applied directing the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount, and to recover the same later from the owner of the offending vehicle. 13. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle as the deceased is an unauthorised passenger travelling in the goods auto, and Ex.B-1 policy does not cover the passengers travelling in the insured vehicle. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation? 2. Whether the pay and recovery principle be applied to the case on hand? 3. To what relief? 15. POINT No.1: It is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged 27 years by the date of death. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month as an Office Boy in Erudite Coaching Centre, Arundelpet, Guntur. But the learned Tribunal considering the age of the claimants i.e., parents of the deceased, applied multiplier 11'. The age of the deceased shall be considered for applying multiplier, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Constitutional Bench Judgment). In that view of the matter, the correct multiplier to be applied in the case is 16', and loss of the dependency shall be calculated accordingly. 16. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Constitutional Bench Judgment). In that view of the matter, the correct multiplier to be applied in the case is 16', and loss of the dependency shall be calculated accordingly. 16. The monthly income of deceased fixed by the learned Tribunal was Rs.1,500/-. As the deceased was bachelor, half of the monthly income be deducted towards personal expenses, and thus, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.1,500 - 750 = Rs.750/-. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.750x12 = Rs.9,000/-. The multiplier applicable for the age group of 26 to 30 years' is 16'. Thus, loss of dependency is Rs.9,000x16 = Rs.1,44,000/-, instead of Rs.99,000/-awarded by the learned Tribunal. 17. The learned Tribunal did not award future prospects on the established income of the deceased. The claimants are entitled to future prospects on the established income of the deceased in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. Therefore, future prospects @ 40% on the established income of deceased is Rs.1,44,000 x 40/100 = Rs.57,600/ in addition to the amount awarded towards loss of the dependency. 18. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. But in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 19. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 , the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased also entitled to loss of filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. The total compensation comes to Rs.1,44,000 + 57,600 + 1,10,000 = Rs.3,11,600/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,16,000/-. 20. The claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount of Rs.3,11,600/- as per section 171 of M.V.Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The total compensation comes to Rs.1,44,000 + 57,600 + 1,10,000 = Rs.3,11,600/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,16,000/-. 20. The claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount of Rs.3,11,600/- as per section 171 of M.V.Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Considering the date of accident, prevailing rate of interest, and in view of the Apex Court judgement in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC), this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled for a reasonable interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though claim petition is being valued at a lesser value for Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded towards just compensation i.e., Rs.3,11,600/- be awarded. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal shall be modified. Accordingly, the point is answered. 22. POINT No.2: The learned Tribunal held that the crime vehicle is a goods vehicle, and that the deceased was seating in the body of the goods vehicle, as mid-way passenger, and therefore, he is a gratuitous passenger travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal held that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, as Ex.B-1 insurance policy do not cover the gratuitous passengers. 23. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied pay and recovery principle in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others. 24. The facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle and Ex.B-1 policy do not cover the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Swaran Singh and others. 24. The facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle and Ex.B-1 policy do not cover the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others in similar circumstances, held that in view of the benevolent object of the Act, the Insurance Company be directed to pay the compensation first and recover later from the other respondents. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendran and another, AIR 2018 SC 4252 , in para 10 held as under: 'At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh & Ors., Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1).' 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in above case held that the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 27. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal be allowed by directing the insurance company to first pay the compensation amount and recover the same later from the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the point is answered. 28. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of finding on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.07.2010. 29. Accordingly, the point is answered. 28. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of finding on points No.1 and 2, the appeal is liable to be allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.07.2010. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.134/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl.District Judge, Guntur, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,11,600/-(Rupees Three Lakhs, Eleven Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.1,16,000/-against the 1st respondent/insured, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 30. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed firstly to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,11,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Eleven Thousand and Six Hundred only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment, and later can recover the same from the 1st respondent/insured, in the same proceedings, by filing necessary application as per law. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had already deposited some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. 31. On such deposit, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,55,800/- (Rupees One Lakh, Fifty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 32. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.