JUDGMENT : Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:- Heard Sri M. Solaman Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V Act”) was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 29.04.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.954 of 2005 (in short, “M.V.O.P”), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Guntur (for short, “the Tribunal”). By the said award, the claim of the claimant-respondents 1 to 3 was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.32,40,000/- with interest thereon @ 7% p.a from the date of the claim petition i.e., 01.07.2005 till date of realization. 3. The claimants-respondents 1 to 3 filed the aforesaid M.V.O.P No.954 of 2005 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Dr. M. Aruna on inter alia the averments that in a lorry accident dated 10.03.2004 at 10.30 a.m in the middle of Kanaka Durga Varadhi of Vijayawada, Dr. M. Aruna died. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as Government Doctor and was also running a private nursing home under the name and style of Poojitha Hospital at Narasaraopet and was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. The accident was caused by the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.A.P.12 T 3677 belonging to the present 4th respondent, being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, which hit the motorcycle on its backside on which the deceased was a pillion rider, the rider being Dr. Anil Kumar. 4. The 4th respondent (Respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P) remained ex parte. 5. The appellant (respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P) filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition and inter alia contending that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case in the claim petition. It was denied that the driver of the offending lorry was rash and negligent. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcycle rider. It was pleaded that Poojitha Hospital was started by the claimant No.1, and it was denied that the deceased started the said hospital and was doing private practice. The claim was said to be highly exorbitant. 6. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcycle rider. It was pleaded that Poojitha Hospital was started by the claimant No.1, and it was denied that the deceased started the said hospital and was doing private practice. The claim was said to be highly exorbitant. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.A.P.No.12 T 3677 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. The claimants examined P.W.1 Dr. M.V. Subba Rao, P.W.2 Shaik Kari Mullah, P.W.3 V. Suresh, P.W.4 T. Subose Chandra Bose. Ex.A.1 C.C of F.I.R, Ex.A.2 C.C of Charge sheet, Ex.A.3, C.C of P.M report, Ex.A.4 C.C of Inquest report, Ex.A.5 M.V.I report, Ex.A.6 Income tax assessments for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, Ex.A.7 original M.B.B.S. Degree certificate of the deceased, Ex.A.8 income tax returns for the year 2002-2003, Ex.A.9 office copy of income tax returns for the year 2004-2005 and Ex.X.1 statement issued by S.B.I, Narasaraopet and Ex.X.2 statement issued by Margadarsi Chit Fund, Narasaraopet were marked. 8. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in M.V.O.P, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 photograph was marked in the cross-examination of P.W.1. 9. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred in the manner stated in the claim petition. In other words, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. 10. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased not less than Rs.15,000/- from the private practice and Rs.10,000/- as salary, in total Rs.25,000/, per month. The annual income was determined as Rs.3,00,000/. 1/3rd was deducted towards her personal expenses. The contribution towards maintenance of the claimants was arrived at Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 was applied. The loss of dependency was determined as Rs.32,00,000/-. It awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In total it thus awarded Rs.32,40,000/- with interest thereon @ 7% p.a as aforesaid. The multiplier of 16 was applied. The loss of dependency was determined as Rs.32,00,000/-. It awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In total it thus awarded Rs.32,40,000/- with interest thereon @ 7% p.a as aforesaid. The Tribunal further recorded that there was valid insurance coverage for the offending lorry and consequently, the appellant and the respondent No.4 herein were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the monthly income of the deceased has been incorrectly determined, on the higher side. The Tribunal should have considered only Rs.10,000/- per month and not Rs.25,000/- by adding Rs.15,000/- more, per month, from the private practice, for which there was no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and is not just and fair compensation. 12. No other point was argued for the appellant. 13. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 14. The point for determination is as under: “Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant-respondents is just and fair or it is exorbitant?” 15. The appellant insurance company did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. 16. The monthly income of the deceased of Rs.10,000/- from the contract employment in the Government hospital is admitted to the insurance company. The Tribunal has also so observed in its judgment in issue No.2. The same has not been disputed before us. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, that was the only income that should have been taken into consideration. 17. The only argument is with respect to addition of Rs.15,000/- per month from private practice. 18. The Tribunal recorded that the deceased during her life time did not file any income tax returns. After her death for the first time P.W.1 filed Ex.A.8 to A.10 income tax returns in the name of the deceased, on 15.12.2004. The date of death is 10.03.2004. So, the Tribunal drew the inference that the deceased did not get such a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- p.a as claimed in the claim petition. After her death for the first time P.W.1 filed Ex.A.8 to A.10 income tax returns in the name of the deceased, on 15.12.2004. The date of death is 10.03.2004. So, the Tribunal drew the inference that the deceased did not get such a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- p.a as claimed in the claim petition. However, considering the evidence of P.W.3 the Manager of the State Bank of India, Narasaraopet Branch that the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the State Bank of India on 26.02.2002 for purchasing equipment for Poojitha Hospital and that she was paying Rs.5,000/- every month towards discharge of the State Bank of India equipment loan and also considering that Rs.6,000/- per month was being paid towards subscription to Margadarshi Chit Fund Company by the deceased, and in the absence of any evidence to show that these amounts were being paid by the deceased?s husband (P.W.1), the Tribunal assessed additional monthly income of the deceased “not less than Rs.15,000/-”. The Tribunal observed that it is the minimum income, a senior medical practitioner could get from that practice. It has not been argued before us that the deceased was not making the payment of the installment of the loan amount taken from the State Bank of India towards the purchase of equipments or the payment of Rs.6,000/- per month towards payment to Margadarshi Chit Fund. The Tribunal has drawn inference from the material on record, a reasonable, and possible one. Rs.15,000/- per month, taken on that count also appears to be a reasonable amount. 19. In the exercise of the first appellate jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of income from private practice, as it is well settled in law that if the Tribunal/court has taken a possible view based on material on record, the appellate court would be loath to interfere. In Sharanamma and others vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 11 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “12. Generally, a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal until and unless it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake had taken place. In Sharanamma and others vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 11 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “12. Generally, a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal until and unless it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake had taken place. If the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was fair and reasonable and the award of the Tribunal was neither contrary nor inconsistent with the relevant facts as per the evidence available record then as mentioned hereinabove, the High Court would not interfere in the appeal.” 20. Consequently, we do not find it a case for interference with the finding of the Tribunal on the point of monthly income that is fixed as Rs.25,000/- i.e., (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) 21. Though there is no representation for the respondent/ claimants but the legal position is settled that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation, which it is the duty of the court to award. 22. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Yogesh Devi & Ors, AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 945 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation in a motor vehicles accident claim. It referred to the case of State of Haryana and another V. Jasbir Kaur and others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 wherein it was held that “compensation must be “just”, and it cannot be a bonanza: not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali and Others Vs Lokendra Rathod and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 while referring to Sarla Verma (Supra) observed that, “The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) gives 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 applicant/s.” It referred to Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. 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 applicant/s.” It referred to Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., in which it was laid down that ...“Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 23. It is also well settled that even in the absence of, any appeal or cross-objection filed in the appeal by the insurance company or the owner, the claimants can be awarded just compensation. 24. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Susubelli Bapuji and others, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3955, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 13 to 19 as under: “13. In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited', 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 applicant(s). 14. Para Nos.9 and 10 in N.Jayasree (3^^ 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. 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 applicant(s). 10. In Sarla Verma, this Court has laid down as under: (SCC pp.131-132, para 16) "16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a " (2022) 14 SCC 712 result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. " 15. In Surekha v. Santosh\ 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 is as under: 2. By now, it is well-settled llial in the matter of insuranco claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants. 16. In Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Air', the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation Merely because In the execution proceedings they accepted the amount as awarded may be as full and final settlement, that shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and claimants are entitled to just compensation. 17. Para No. 17 of Meena Pawaia (5'^ supra) read as under; 17. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and claimants are entitled to just compensation. 17. Para No. 17 of Meena Pawaia (5'^ supra) read as under; 17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Union of India that as in the execution proceedings the claimants accepted the amount due and payable under the impugned judgment and order and accepted the same as full and final settlement thereafter the claimants ought not to have preferred appeal for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. The claimants are entitled to Just compensation. Merely because in the execution proceedings they might have accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held to be entitled to. /As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and as observed hereinabove the claimants are entitled to just compensation. As such, the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence. 18. In Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathotf, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under; 10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives 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 applicant(s). 11. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, this Court has laid down as under: "16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. " 19. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. " 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, and ® 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 c) that the amount of compensation claimed in their petition, is less than the amount of the compensation determined by the Tribunal/Court.” 25. We find from the perusal of the judgment/award, that under some heads, the award of the compensation amount is either not granted or is not according to the law. We cannot ignore that aspect while considering just and fair compensation. 26. Future prospectus have not been awarded at all. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under in Paras 59.3 and 59.4 :- “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 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 method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 27. The deceased was working as doctor on contract basis in a Government Hospital. She died at the age of 30 years. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 27. The deceased was working as doctor on contract basis in a Government Hospital. She died at the age of 30 years. The claimants are therefore entitled for addition of future prospects @ 40% of the established income in terms of Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), we award 40% of the income towards future prospectus. 28. On conventional heads, as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 Magma National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants, being Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors, (2021) 11 SCC 780 as well, by revising the amount every three years @ 10% i.e., @ 20% as on today. 29. The amount of just and fair compensation would come to as follows: S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income (As per Tribunal) Rs. 3,00,000/- 2. Future Prospects (40% of the Income) Rs. 1,20,000/- Total = Rs. 4,20,000/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/3 rd of income) Rs. 1,40,000/- 4. Total income Rs. 2,80,000/- 5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 30 years i.e. 16 x 2,80,000/- = Rs.44,80,000/- 6. Conventional Heads: i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 3) ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 46,60,000/ 30. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7% 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 & 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. In Rahul Sharma & 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. and in Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 228 allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 31. Accordingly, on the aforesaid amount the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. RESULT: 32. In the result: i) The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii) The claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.46,60,000/- as just and fair compensation, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of the claim petition till realization; iii) The appellant/insurance company shall deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited if any, before the Tribunal within one month, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law; iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award, v) The costs throughout is allowed in favour of the Claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3, and against the appellant. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.