JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J : Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents. 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 12.04.2013 in Original Petition No.302 of 2012 (in short, "O.P"), passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapur at Gooty. 3. The claimants-respondents have filed the cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation amount. There is some delay in filing the cross-objections. They have filed IA No.3 of 2017 (MACMA MP No.36219 of 2017) for condonation of delay. The cause shown in the affidavit for the delay in filing the cross-objection is condoned. 4. The respondent No.1 Shaik Mohammad Mustafa, is the applicant/claimant in OP No.302 of 2012. The OP was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the fatal injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 21.07.2008 at about 9.45 a.m., near Blue Moon Hotel, Gooty, Anantapur Road within the limits of Gooty Police Station. The 1st respondent's case was that he was aged about 20 years, at the time of the accident. He studied upto B.Tech, in SKD Engineering College, Gooty. He was brilliant, intelligent and meritorious student and had high hopes on his future by appearing campus recruitments after completion of his Engineering Graduation. Due to the fatal injuries so sustained in the road accident, he could not attend for campus recruitment for better jobs since he was unable to move freely. Due to the fatal crush injuries in the accident his left leg was amputated upto femur. He was facing difficulty to attend his day-to-day personal work, studies and for searching of job. He became completely dependent upon others for his survival. The accident was caused when he was the pillion rider of the motorcycle and Noor Mohammad was driving the motor cycle slowly and carefully on the extreme left side of road by following traffic rules, and when they reached near Blue Moon Hotel, Gooty on Gooty-Anantapur Road, the driver of the offending lorry Bearing No.AP-02-W-7586 drove it from their behind in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, and hit against their motor cycle from behind. As a result, the applicant and the rider of the motor cycle fell down from the motor cycle; the lorry passed over the motorcycle and also on left leg of the applicant; thereby his left leg was crushed upto knee. The applicant also sustained multiple injuries all over body and his motor cycle was badly damaged. 5. The 2nd respondent herein, 1st respondent in the O.P., remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent in O.P. Insurance Company, present appellant, filed written statement denying the averments of the claim petition. Plea was taken that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle and that there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. The rider of the motor cycle so also the driver of the offending lorry had no driving license at the time of accident. The plea was also taken that the offending vehicle had also no valid permit, fitness certificate etc., at the time of accident and that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive. 7. The Tribunal framed the following issues : "1. Whether the accident occurred on 21.07.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.A.P.02-W-7586 by its driver and caused the injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?" 8. On behalf of the claimant, the injured claimant was examined as PW1 and PW2 eye-witness to the accident, the person who was ridding the motorcycle. The documents Ex.A1-Certified Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Certified Copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Certified Copy of Charge-sheet, Ex.A4-Bunch of Medical Bills, Ex.A5-Original Disability Certificate, Ex.A6-X-rays, Ex.A7-Attested Copy of B.Tech, Provisional Certificate, Ex.A8-M.Tech Studying Certificate and Ex.A9-Xerox Copy of Insurance Policy. Through PW3 Ex.C1-Case-sheet, Ex.C2-Final Bill and Ex.C3-Consultation Fee Receipt were marked. 9. On behalf of the respondents in the O.P., no evidence was made, except Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy which was marked by consent. 10. The Tribunal recorded the finding on Issue No.1 that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the 1st respondent in the O.P. 11. On the point of compensation, it determined Rs.34,99,000/- in different heads but awarded Rs.30,00,000/- only which was the claim in the claim petition. 10. The Tribunal recorded the finding on Issue No.1 that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the 1st respondent in the O.P. 11. On the point of compensation, it determined Rs.34,99,000/- in different heads but awarded Rs.30,00,000/- only which was the claim in the claim petition. The income of applicant was taken as Rs.15,000/- per month with increase in his salary in future every year; the annual income being Rs.1,80,000/-. The age of the applicant at the time of accident was taken as 20 years. So, multiplier of 18 was held applicable since the applicant sustained 85% of permanent disability, he was entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- x 85/100 = Rs.26,01,000/-. To the said amount, the Tribunal added the following amount of compensation under different heads : B C D E Pain and Suffering, Mental Agony, Personal inconvenience, Loss of Marital Life etc. Transportation Expenses, Extra Nourishment and Attendant charges Loss of Personal life due to loss of amenities and Loss of marital Life. Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.70,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.6,20,000/- 12. Challenging the award, the appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company. The claimants-respondents have also filed the cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation amount. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised the only submission that the monthly income of the applicant as Rs.15,000/- is on the higher side, which as per the submission should have been Rs.12,000/- per month, placing reliance in the case of B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another, 2009 SCC OnLine AP 565 and N. Surender Rao and others v. B. Swamy and another, 2014 (1) ALT 512 (DB), in which the deceased was an Engineering Graduate and Rs.12,000/- per month was fixed referring to B. Ramulamma's case (supra). 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that there is no illegality in determining the monthly income as Rs.15,000/-, which is by taking into account the factors mentioned in the order. It cannot be said to be excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted just compensation which could be more than the claimed amount. 15. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. It cannot be said to be excessive. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted just compensation which could be more than the claimed amount. 15. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. The points that arise for our consideration are : "(i) Whether the fixation of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary of the applicant respondent No.1 by the Tribunal is excessive? (ii) Whether the claimants have been awarded just and fair compensation? 17. The applicant was studying IIIrd year B.Tech in SKD Engineering College, Gooty at the time of accident. Later on, he passed B.Tech with first class and also pursued Final Year M.Tech in Electrical Power Engineering in the same college, during the academic year 2012-13, which have not been disputed before us. He had bright future in I.T. filed. He sustained permanent disability due to fatal injury resulting to amputation of his left leg upto femur. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence contrary to the evidence of PW1, led in support of the applicant being able to earn minimum salary of Rs.15,000/- per month with annual increase. The job market and potential increase in the salary factors were taken into consideration by the Tribunal in determining the income as Rs.15,000/- per month. 18. In the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2020) 15 SCC 493 , it was held that in the cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. Giving example it was further observed that, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poser would be what have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. 19. In M.R. Krishna Murthi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Paras 24 and 24.1 to 24.4 as under : "24. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, the following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal : 24.1. 19. In M.R. Krishna Murthi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Paras 24 and 24.1 to 24.4 as under : "24. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, the following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal : 24.1. In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poser would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. That can be the future earning. 24.2. There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career, etc. If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained. 24.3. There may be cases like Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi, (2009) 13 SCC 123 = (2009) 5 SCC (Civ.) 29 = (2010) 1 SCC (Cri.) 963, where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part-time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. 24.4. After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. 24.4. After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 584 = (2014) 2 SCC (Civ.) 297 = (2014) 4 SCC (Cri.) 634." 20. In Navjot v. Harpreet Singh and others, MANU/SC/0527/2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree Course in Engineering should not be taken to be equivalent to minimum wage admissible to an unskilled member. Students selection through campus interview are atleast offer a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. 21. In B. Ramulamma's case (supra), upon which learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance, the Division Bench of this Court in Paras 51 and 52 observed as under: "51. ......... As far as the students, who completed or in final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., B.C.A., M.Tech., ME., or MBA, MCA., etc., courses and who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries also can be fixed on the basis of the salary of their classmates when they entered into jobs. Some percentage say e.g., 10% per year can be deducted in respect of the students studying IIIrd year or IInd year as the case may be. 52. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have minimum Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that now-a-days IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that now-a-days IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the Graduates in Engineering i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise it amounts to neglecting the ground of reality. Similarly those who have completed M.Tech., MCA, MBA, the income of such persons can be fixed a little higher i.e., at Rs.15,000/- per month. This will take care of the additional income which they would have earned in course of their service." 22. In the present case, the applicant was in B.Tech 3rd year. He passed it in first class. He also completed M.Tech in Electrical Power Engineering which is a Post Graduate Degree. Even applying B. Ramulamma's case (supra), fixation of Rs.15,000/- per month is not on the higher side. Rs.12,000/- per month as in the said case was considered as minimum income of B.Tech Graduate and not as maximum. The range of income from Rs.12,000/- - Rs.15,000/- per month was prescribed. 23. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in determination of the monthly income as Rs.15,000/- of the applicant-respondent No.1. The determination is, considering various factors, as notional. In the exercise of the First Appellate jurisdiction, it is not a case for interference in the finding recorded on income. 24. No other ground to challenge the award is taken in the appeal, except the monthly income. Any other argument on any other aspect has also not been advanced. It is a well settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation, which should neither be a bonanza nor a pittance. Effort must be made to determine the just compensation. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi and others, AIR 2012 SC 945 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation in a motor vehicles accident claim. Effort must be made to determine the just compensation. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi and others, AIR 2012 SC 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." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, while referring to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , observed that: "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 endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 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." 26. What we apparently notice is that, at the age of 20 or 21 (i.e., age group of 21 to 25) years, the applicable multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra), is 18%'. The Tribunal also considered and held under Issue No.2(a) that the applicable multiplier would be 18'. What we apparently notice is that, at the age of 20 or 21 (i.e., age group of 21 to 25) years, the applicable multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra), is 18%'. The Tribunal also considered and held under Issue No.2(a) that the applicable multiplier would be 18'. However, from the following part of the judgment of Tribunal, it is evident that it actually used multiplier of 17' in computing compensation under the head of 'loss of earnings'. ".........Thereby the appropriate multiplier to be used to calculate the compensation under this head as 18'. Since the petitioner sustained 85% of permanent disability, it is to be held that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- x 17 x 85/100 = Rs.26,01,000/- rounded to Rs.26,00,000/- as total compensation....." 27. The aforesaid is the apparent error in calculation made by the Tribunal. We therefore use the correct multiplier. If 18' is used, the amount would come to Rs.1,80,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/- x 85/100 = Rs.27,54,000/- under the head of loss of future earning. 28. The total compensation would be as follows; even as per the determination made by the Tribunal : Sl. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.15,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- 2. Multiplier of 18 at the age of 20 years i.e. 18 x Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.32,40,000/- 3. 85% permanent disability 85% of Rs.32,40,000/- = Rs.27,54,000/- 4. Pain and Suffering, Mental Agony, Personal inconvenience, Loss of Marital Life etc. Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Transportation Expenses, Extra Nourishment and Attendant charges Rs.70,000/- 6. Loss of Personal life due to loss of amenities and Loss of marital Life. Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. Medical Expenses Rs.6,20,000/- 8. Total Compensation Rs. 36,44,000/- 29. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7.5% p.a. In the absence of any argument on such rate from either side, we maintain the interest @ 7.5% p.a. 30. The Tribunal erred in limiting the compensation to the claimed amount only, even after recording that the claimant was entitled to the amount more than the claimed amount. It is settled in law that the claimants are entitled to just and fair compensation, which cannot be restricted to the claimed amount, if in law the claimants are held entitled to higher amount of compensation. 31. It is settled in law that the claimants are entitled to just and fair compensation, which cannot be restricted to the claimed amount, if in law the claimants are held entitled to higher amount of compensation. 31. It is well settled in law 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. 32. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susubelli Bapuji and others, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3955, a Coordinate Bench of this 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 v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited (supra), reads as under: 9. 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 applicant(s). 10. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has laid down as under : (SCC Pp.131-132, Para 16) "16. 10. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 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 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. 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's case (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. 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 and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, 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 endeavour 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 and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 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. 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. 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." 33. In the result : (i) The appeal is dismissed with costs to the claimants. (ii) The cross-objections are allowed granting just and fair compensation to the claimant/respondent as per this judgment, vide Paras 28 and 29. (iii) The appellant shall deposit the amount as aforesaid, with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till payment/realization, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid, if any, before the Tribunal within one month, failing which, the amount shall be recovered and paid to the claimant as per law. (iv) On deposit being made, the claimant/respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same. 34. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.