JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the M.V. Act') has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'APSRTC'), challenging the award dated 14.10.2016 of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (in short 'the Tribunal') passed in OP No.2 of 2015, by which the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,98,824/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. 3. The claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Original Petition No.2 of 2015 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- due to death of wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant Nos.2 to 4 in Motor Accident on 07.03.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., near Chitravathi River Bridge of Kodikonda Village within the limits of Chilamathur P.S. The deceased was 45 years of age and she was working as School Assistant at ZPH School, Kodikonda Village and drawing salary of Rs.36,483/- and was looking after the family. The claimants were entirely depending on the earnings of deceased. While deceased was travelling in an auto Bearing No.AP02Y3049 from Kodikonda Village to Kodikonda Check Post, APSRTC bus Bearing No.AP8Z1291 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto. The deceased received fatal injuries and while undergoing treatment, she died. The deceased was likely to be promoted as Headmistress within short time and would have received revised salary and future increments. 4. Respondent No.2 in OP-Shaik Mahammad Ali, driver of the bus remained ex parte and did not file any counter. 5. Respondent No.1 in the OP-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition and asking that the claimants be put to strict proof thereof. It was further pleaded that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The bus was not being driven rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto. The driver, owner and insurer of the auto should also have been added as respondent parties. The claim was highly exaggerated. 6. It was further pleaded that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The bus was not being driven rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto. The driver, owner and insurer of the auto should also have been added as respondent parties. The claim was highly exaggerated. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues : (i) Whether the road accident occurred on 07.03.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., near Chitravathi River Bridge of Kodikonda Village due to rash and negligent driving of Bus Bearing No.AP28Z1291 as alleged by the petitioners? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 7. The claimants to prove their case examined the claimant No.1 as PW1 and one independent witness as PW2. They relied upon Exs.A1 to A7. The APSRTC examined the RW1 and got marked Ex.B1-the judgment in CC No.310/2014. 8. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus by its driver. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded finding that the deceased was working as School Assistant. As per the service register the date of birth of the deceased was 12.06.1966. On the date of accident i.e., 07.03.2014 the deceased was 47 years. She was drawing salary of Rs.36,483/- per month based on Ex.A6 salary certificate. The Tribunal determined the net salary after deduction of income tax and professional tax as Rs.29,142/-. 10% towards future prospects was added. The net salary for computing compensation was thus taken as Rs.32,056/-. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. On calculation, 2/3rd of annual income of the deceased was rounded upto Rs.2,56,448/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 at the age of 47 and determined the total loss of dependency as Rs.33,33,824/-. It added Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss to estate. The claimant No.1 was held entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal thus awarded in total sum of Rs.33,98,824/- with interest thereof @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is collision between the APSRTC bus and the Auto, in which the deceased was travelling. The Tribunal thus awarded in total sum of Rs.33,98,824/- with interest thereof @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is collision between the APSRTC bus and the Auto, in which the deceased was travelling. He submits that the driver of the auto was not impleaded as party in the claim petition. He submits that the said plea was taken but any point for determination as to whether the driver of the auto was necessary to be impleaded as party, was not framed. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the income, the age and deduction towards personal expenses are concerned, there is no challenge. 11. Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/claimants, submits that the driver of the auto was not necessary party. He further submits that appropriate amount of compensation under the conventional heads has not been awarded. The amount of interest @ 7.5% is also on the lower side, it should be 9%. 12. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record. 13. The following points arise for our consideration : 1. Whether the driver of the auto was necessary party to be impleaded? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded to the claimants is just and fair compensation? 3. To what rate of interest the claimants are entitled? 14. So far as the first point is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver of the bus was solely responsible as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any evidence to show that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the said point suffers from perversity. Consequently once the finding is that the only person responsible was the bus driver, even if the driver of the auto in which deceased was travelling or its owner and insurer were not impleaded, the claim petition would not be bad for non-joinder of party. We are not inclined to accept the submission that the driver of the auto was a necessary party. 15. We are not inclined to accept the submission that the driver of the auto was a necessary party. 15. Even in the case of composite negligence, though the present is not a case of composite negligence, but is a case of the only negligence of the driver of RTC Bus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 9 SCC 273 , held that it is open for the claimant to claim compensation either from the owner/driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. The relevant Paras 11 to 14 read as under: "11. A Full Bench in Karnataka SRTC v. Arun, AIR 2004 Kar. 149 , while answering the aforesaid questions has observed that it was a case of composite negligence and the liability of tortfeasors was joint and several. Hence, even if there is non-impleadment of one of the tortfeasors, the claimant was entitled to full compensation quantified by the Tribunal. The Full Bench referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hiraben Bhaga v. Gujarat SRTC, 1981 SCC OnLine Guj. 68, in which it has been laid down that it is entirely the choice of the claimant whether to implead both the joint tortfeasors or either of them. On failure of the claimant to implead one of the joint tortfeasors, contributory liability cannot be fastened upon the claimant to the extent of the negligence of non-impleaded joint tortfeasors. It is for the joint tortfeasors made liable to pay compensation to take proceedings to settle the equities as against other joint tortfeasors who had not been impleaded. It is open to the impleaded joint tortfeasor to sue the other wrongdoer after the decree or award is given to realise to the extent of others' liability. It has been laid down that the law in Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 1998 SCC OnLine Kar. 603, has been rightly laid down and it is not necessary to implead all joint tortfeasors and due to failure of impleadment of all joint tortfeasors, compensation cannot be reduced to the extent of negligence of non-impleaded tortfeasors. Non-impleadment of one of the joint tortfeasors is not a defence to reduce the compensation payable to the claimant. In our opinion, the law appears to have been correctly stated in Karnataka SRTC v. Arun (supra). 12. Non-impleadment of one of the joint tortfeasors is not a defence to reduce the compensation payable to the claimant. In our opinion, the law appears to have been correctly stated in Karnataka SRTC v. Arun (supra). 12. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya and others v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. and another, 2005 (1) MPLJ 372 , has also laid down that in case of composite negligence, the liability is joint and several and it is open to implead the driver, owner and the insurer one of the vehicles to recover the whole amount from one of the joint tortfeasors. As to apportionment also, it has been observed that both the vehicles will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Once the negligence and compensation is determined, it is not permissible to apportion the compensation between the two as it is difficult to determine the apportionment in the absence of the drivers of both the vehicles appearing in the witness box. Therefore, there cannot be apportionment of the claim between the joint tort-feasors. 13. The relevant portion of decision of Full Bench is extracted hereunder : "25. When injury is caused as a result of negligence of two joint tort-feasors, claimant is not required to lay his finger on the exact person regarding his proportion of liability. In the absence of any evidence enabling the Court to distinguish the act of each joint tort-feasor, liability can be fastened on both the tort-feasors jointly and in case only one of the joint tort-feasors is impleaded as party, then entire liability can be fastened upon one of the joint tort-feasors. If both the joint tort-feasors are before the Court and there is sufficient evidence regarding the act of each tort-feasors and it is possible for the Court to apportion the claim considering the exact nature of negligence by both the joint tort-feasors, it may apportion the claim. However, it is not necessary to apportion the claim when it is not possible to determine the ratio of negligence of joint tort-feasors. In such cases, joint tort-feasors will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 26. However, it is not necessary to apportion the claim when it is not possible to determine the ratio of negligence of joint tort-feasors. In such cases, joint tort-feasors will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 26. On the same principle, in the case of joint tort-feasors where the liability is joint and several, it is the choice of the claimant to claim damages from the owner and driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. If claim is made against one of them, entire amount of compensation on account of injury or death can be imposed against the owner, driver and insurer of that vehicle as their liability is joint and several and the claimant can recover the amount from any one of them. There cannot be apportionment of claim of each tort-feasors in the absence of proper and cogent evidence on record and it is not necessary to apportion the claim. 27. To sum up, we hold as under : (i) Owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. (ii) There cannot be apportionment of the liability of joint tort-feasors. In case both the joint tort-feasors are impleaded as party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the question of apportionment can be considered by the claims Tribunal. However, on general principles of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tort-feasors. 28. Reference is answered accordingly. Appeal be placed before appropriate Bench for hearing." 14. In our opinion, the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in, Sushila Bhadoriya v. M.P. SRTC, 2004 SCC OnLine MP 360, is also in tune with the decisions of the High Court of Karnataka in, Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 1998 SCC OnLine Kar. 603 and Karnataka SRTC v. Arun, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar. 715. In our opinion, the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in, Sushila Bhadoriya v. M.P. SRTC, 2004 SCC OnLine MP 360, is also in tune with the decisions of the High Court of Karnataka in, Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 1998 SCC OnLine Kar. 603 and Karnataka SRTC v. Arun, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar. 715. However, at the same time, suffice it to clarify that even if all the joint tortfeasors are impleaded and both the drivers have entered the witness box and the Tribunal or the Court is able to determine the extent of negligence of each driver that is for the purpose of inter se liability between the joint tortfeasors but their liability would remain joint and several so as to satisfy the plaintiff/claimant." 16. Consequently, we do not find force in the submission that the driver/owner/insurer of the auto should also have been impleaded by the claimants and in their absence, the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim against the appellant such submission is rejected. 17. On the second point of just and fair compensation amount, from perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has awarded the future prospects @ 10%. The age of the deceased was 47 years. The deceased was working as a School Assistant in ZPH School, Kodikonda Village, Chilamathur Mandal. The deceased was thus in permanent job. At the age group of 40 to 50 years, as per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the future prospects should be @ 30%. 18. In Paras 59.3 and 59.4 of Pranay Sethi's case (supra), it has been held as under: "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. 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." 19. We accordingly award 30% as future prospects instead of 10% as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. We also find that under the conventional heads the amount granted by the Tribunal is not as per the law. 21. As per the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (supra); Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 ; Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901, we award the amounts under the Conventional Heads, for loss of Consortium, loss of Estate and funeral expenses, as Rs.48,400/- (per claimant), Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini's case (supra), which is with an increase of 10% every three years. 22. It is 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. It referred to the case of State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur, (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." 23. Thus, considered the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for the following amount of compensation being just and fair. Sl.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income (As per Tribunal) Rs.29,142/- x 12 = Rs.3,49,704/- 2. Thus, considered the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for the following amount of compensation being just and fair. Sl.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income (As per Tribunal) Rs.29,142/- x 12 = Rs.3,49,704/- 2. Future Prospects (30% of the income) Rs.1,04,911/- Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs.4,54,615/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.1,51,538/- 4. Total Annual loss Rs.3,03,076/- 5. Multiplier of 13 at the age of 47 years i.e., 13 x Rs.3,03,076/-/- = Rs.39,39,998/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- x 4) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.41,69,898/- 24. So far as the third point of rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted interest at 7.5% p.a. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, (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 v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a., from the date of the claim petition. In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 and in Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (supra), also the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 , allowed interest @ 9% p.a. We accordingly allow interest @ 9% p.a. 25. In the result, (i) The MACMA No.1505 of 2017 is dismissed; (ii) The respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.41,69,898/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till deposit/ realization; (iii) The appellant-APSRTC 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 shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award; (v) The costs throughout is made in favour of the claimants to be paid by the appellant. 26. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.