JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel representing Sri S. Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. 2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 06.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of one Madapana Adinarayana (hereinafter referred to ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 26.12.2009 at 8.00 PM near Singavaram village, Vizianagaram district. 5. The case of the claimants is that the claimants are dependants on the deceased; the deceased was working as a mason, aged 28 years and earning Rs.200/- per day; on 26.12.2009 he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP35F 4863; when he reached a place near Singavaram village, a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP31X 9549 (hereinafter referred to ‘offending vehicle’) was negligently and wrongly parked on the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle; as a result, the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from behind; he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot; police registered a case and investigated the same and laid report (charge sheet). The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. 6. The 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed counter denying the allegations of the claimants and contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company. 7. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the allegations of the claimants are not true and correct and that, the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased Madapana Adinarayana succumbed to injuries that caused him in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP31X 9549 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased Madapana Adinarayana succumbed to injuries that caused him in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP31X 9549 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined one B.Bangaru Naidu as P.W.2 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents. On behalf of the respondents/owner or the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. Ex.B1 copy of policy was exhibited with the consent of parties. 10. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle, and estimated the contributory negligence of the deceased at ‘50%’. 11. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 assessed the compensation amount entitled by the claimants for a sum of Rs.4,44,000/-, but deducted 50% of the said amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- with interest at 6.5% per annum. 12. The claimants filed the appeal contending that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence of P.W.2 and police report (charge sheet) erroneously found that the deceased also contributed to the accident. The other contention is that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that P.W.2 evidence would establish that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures and the it was corroborated by the opinion of the police, who laid the police report (charge sheet) after investigation, but, the learned Tribunal erroneously opined that the deceased also contributed to the accident and deducted 50% of the compensation amount towards contributory negligence. He would further submit that the Tribunal did not award future prospects, as well as proper amount under the conventional heads i.e., ‘consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate’ and thereby, did not award just compensation. 14. He would further submit that the Tribunal did not award future prospects, as well as proper amount under the conventional heads i.e., ‘consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate’ and thereby, did not award just compensation. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would contend that the evidence of P.W.2 and the police report (charge sheet) would establish that the deceased dashed the parking vehicle from behind, it indicates that had the deceased taken proper care, he would avoid the accident, but it shows he drove the vehicle very fast at the time of accident; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased also; accordingly, fixed the contributory negligence as ‘50%’ on the part of the deceased and ‘50%’ on the part of the offending vehicle; in that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 15. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram in M.V.O.P. No.261 of 2010 vide Order and Decree dated 06.08.2012 warrants interference of this Court? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram, is not a just compensation? 3. To what relief? POINT NO.1 : 16. The claimants to establish the way in which the accident was occurred, examined B.Bangaru Naidu as P.W.2, before the learned Tribunal. Perusal of his evidence would establish that on 26.12.2009 at about 9.30 PM, the deceased was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP35 F 4863 at the left side of the road margin and he reached the place of accident, where the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP31 X 9549 was parked on the middle of the road in a negligent manner, without any precautionary measures and signals. He would further depose that the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from behind and as a result, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 17. He would further depose that the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from behind and as a result, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 17. It is pertinent to note down that the claimants filed copy of police report (charge sheet) marked as Ex.A4 before the Tribunal. It would disclose that the police after investigation laid the said report (charge sheet) before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 arraying the driver of the offending vehicle as an accused opining that their investigation discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle parked the offending vehicle in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures and as a result, the accident was occurred. Therefore, the material available on record would probable that the deceased drove the motorcycle at the time of accident and he dashed the offending vehicle from behind as the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures required in the circumstances. 18. It is an admitted fact that the accident was occurred during night time at about 9.30 PM. Considering the said circumstance, which probable the fact that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without any precautionary measures and the accident was occurred as the motorcycle dashed the offending vehicle from behind, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to parking of the offending lorry negligently and as the driver of the motorcycle failed to avoid collision on seeing the parked offending vehicle in the middle of the road. These circumstances, would establish that there was negligence on the part of the deceased also, as he drove the vehicle speedily and thereby could not avoid collision. Hence, it can be held that his negligence also contributed for occurrence of the accident. 19. However, percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased fixed at 50% by the tribunal is on higher side, considering the fact that the accident was occurred during night time. Tribunal ought to have fixed it as 70% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Tipper lorry and 30% on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the contributory negligence of the deceased is modified to 30% from 50% fixed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2:- 20. Tribunal ought to have fixed it as 70% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Tipper lorry and 30% on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the contributory negligence of the deceased is modified to 30% from 50% fixed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2:- 20. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence considered the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, since he was working as a mason in a rural area at the time of accident occurred in the year 2009. In those circumstances, the said finding of the learned Tribunal shall remain intact. 21. The age of the deceased was fixed by the learned Tribunal is ‘35 years’ basing on post-mortem report placed by the claimants. 22. Therefore, the multiplier applicable, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and anothers Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 is ‘16’. 23. There are four (04) dependents in the case, hence, 1/4th of the personal income be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2,250 x 12 x 16). 24. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal did not award any future prospects on the established income of the deceased, who was self-employed. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled for future prospects on the established income of the deceased at 40%, as he being self-employed, which comes to Rs.1,72,800/- (Rs.4,32,000 x 40%). 25. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Funeral Expenses’; Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’. The 1st claimant being the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , they are entitled to ‘spousal and filial consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each, which would come to Rs.1,20,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. 26. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty four thousand and eight hundred only) towards compensation under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra as awarded by the learned Tribunal: Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. 26. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty four thousand and eight hundred only) towards compensation under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra as awarded by the learned Tribunal: Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 4,32,000.00 2. Loss of future prospects 1,72,800.00 3. Loss of Consortium 1,20,000.00 4. Loss of Estate 15,000.00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000.00 TOTAL: 7,54,800-00 27. The claim petition was filed for Rs.5,50,000/- only. Indeed, the amount entitled by the claimants towards just compensation is Rs.7,54,800/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, (2019) 15 SCC 260 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants 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.5,50,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.7,54,800/-. 28. However, after deducting 30% of the amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, the claimants in all are entitled Rs.5,28,360/- (Rs.7,54,800 x 30% = Rs.2,26,440/-) towards just compensation. 29. The claimants are entitled to interest on the above amount as per Section 171 of the Act. The accident was occurred in the year 2009. Therefore, considering the prevailing rate of interest at material point in time and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 30. Therefore, considering the prevailing rate of interest at material point in time and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 30. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be ‘partly allowed’ holding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,54,800/- towards compensation and after deducting 30% of the amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, the claimants in all are entitled Rs.5,28,360/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by modifying the Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. POINT NO.3: 31. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2889 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Partly Allowed’. 32. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Partly Allowed’ by modifying the Order and Decree dated 06.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, Vizianagaram, holding that the appellants/ claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,28,360/- (Rupees five lakhs twenty eight thousand three hundred and sixty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,22,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 33. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment, and in the event of already deposited by the insurer, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 34. On such deposit, the appellant No.1/claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 35. 34. On such deposit, the appellant No.1/claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 35. The appellant Nos.2 and 3/claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the sons of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts along with accrued interest thereon. 36. The appellant No.4/claimant No.4 being the mother of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,28,360/- and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 37. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal as per Rule 475 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 on the total compensation amount of Rs.7,54,800/-, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.