JUDGMENT : Heard Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri N.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/Insurance Company and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Insurance Company. 2. The appeal is directed by the claimants against the award and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.131/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 4. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Gollapalli Vasudev (hereinafter referred as deceased) in motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.11.2008. 5. The case of the claimants is that on 11.11.2008 the deceased and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 37X 7322 to go to Kaikaram village for coolie works; the auto reached a place near police station at Tadepalligudem on Eluru-Tadepalligudem road at about 02.30 p.m.; the offending vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 29M 2219 was coming from Eluru and proceeding towards Tadepalligudem came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto; as a result, the auto turned turtle; the deceased and other passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries; they were shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem; the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital; police registered a case in Cr.No.174/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code; the claimants are the dependants on the deceased; hence, they filed claim petition for compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the offending vehicle. The 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4th respondent is the driver-cum-owner of auto and the 5th respondent is the insurer of the auto. 6. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the offending vehicle. The 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4th respondent is the driver-cum-owner of auto and the 5th respondent is the insurer of the auto. 6. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed 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; and contended that the driver of the auto permitted many passengers, then the seating capacity; he failed to control the auto; hence, the auto turned turtle; and the passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries. 8. The 5th respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition, contended that the 4th respondent has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The 4th respondent is an unnecessary party impleaded to the petition. The 5th respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 9. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 29M 2219 driven by its driver i.e., 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claimed amount as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 and 2 and five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5 respectively. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents/Insurance Company. Copies of insurance policies were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 by consent. 11. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It is an admitted fact that none of the respondents challenged the said finding of the learned Tribunal. 12. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,28,500/- towards just compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 13. It is an admitted fact that none of the respondents challenged the said finding of the learned Tribunal. 12. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,28,500/- towards just compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 13. The claimants challenged the above award and decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation entitled by the claimants as per law. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation as only Rs.2,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, and further, no amount was awarded towards consortium and loss of future prospects. 15. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded just compensation, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. 16. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation?” 17. POINT: Admittedly, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In view of the 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), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, total = Rs.30,000/-. 18. In view of the 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 1st claimant being wife of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spouse consortium, the 2nd claimant being the minor daughter of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium, and thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/- under loss of consortium. 19. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it regarding the income of the deceased, notionally fixed the same at Rs.2,000/- per month. 19. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it regarding the income of the deceased, notionally fixed the same at Rs.2,000/- per month. Considering the occupation of the deceased i.e., coolie work, date of accident and the place of work of the deceased i.e., a rural area, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the amount of monthly income fixed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 28 years considering the evidence placed before it. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘18’ rightly as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. 20. There are four dependants in the case. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 1/4th of the income be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, and the learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th income towards personal expenses of deceased. The monthly income of deceased is Rs.2,000/- and annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,000x12 = Rs.24,000/-. 1/4th of the said income be deducted towards personal expenses and thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.24,000-6,000= Rs.18,000/-. The multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.18,000x18 = Rs.3,24,000/-. 21. 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, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for claimants, by treating the deceased as a person having fixed income. Therefore, claimants are entitled to compensation towards future prospects @ 40%, since the deceased is below 40 years. Thus, the future prospects @ 40% on the established income of deceased would be Rs.3,24,000 x 40/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-, in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of dependency. Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,24,000 + 1,29,600 + 1,10,000 = Rs.5,63,600/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,28,500/-. Thus, the future prospects @ 40% on the established income of deceased would be Rs.3,24,000 x 40/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-, in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of dependency. Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,24,000 + 1,29,600 + 1,10,000 = Rs.5,63,600/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,28,500/-. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants. 22. The claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation amount of Rs.5,63,600/- as per section 171 of M.V.Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Considering the date of accident and prevailing rate of interest, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 23. 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. The law is well settled 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 the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.5,63,600/-. In that view of the matter, the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified. 24. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.5,63,600/- towards just compensation. Accordingly, the point is answered. 25. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.5,63,600/- towards just compensation. Accordingly, the point is answered. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by modifying the award and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.131/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, Wet Godavari at Eluru, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.3,28,500/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. The 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Eluru, is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the 3rd 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. 27. On such deposit, the 1st Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 28. The 2nd appellant/2nd claimant being the daughter of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 29. The Appellants No.3 and 4/claimants No.3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.81,750/-(Rupees Eighty One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty only), and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 30. 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.