JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V.Act”) has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the award of the Motor Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Ongole (in short the Tribunal) dated 03.10.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2006 awarding compensation of Rs.36,17,000/- to the claimants – respondents 1 to 3 with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of the petition till date of realisastion with proportionate costs and the fee. 2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming the compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of one T. Ravi Sankar (the deceased in short) in the road accident dated 16.10.2005 while the deceased along with his friends was going to Shiridi from Pune, Maharashtra State by Qualis vehicle bearing No.MH 14 AE 5242 and when they crossed Rahuri town, they met in an accident with lorry bearing No.MH 41 G 5023 (offending vehicle) owned by the present 5th respondent and being driven by the present 4th respondent and insured with the appellant (2nd respondent in O.P), which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident, the inmates of the vehicle died on the spot including the cleaner of the lorry. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was software engineer earning Rs.38,828/- per month. 3. Respondents 1 and 3 in O.P i.e present respondents 4 and 5 remained ex parte. 4. The insurance company (respondent No.2 in M.O.P) filed written statement denying all the material allegations. It was denied that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent in driving the lorry. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Qualis vehicle. It was also pleaded that the owner and the insurer of the Qualis vehicle were necessary parties. The claim was said to be excessive. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents 1 and 3 lorry? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 6. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents 1 and 3 lorry? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the claimants, the P.W.1 Telukutla Lakshmi, P.W.2 F. Nazeer, P.W.3 R. Chandrakant Shinde were examined, and Ex.A.1 inquest panchanama (Commission referred as Ex.A.10), Ex.A.2 P.M certificate (Commission referred as Ex.A.11), Ex.A.3 dated 08.03.2005 appointment letter (Commission referred as Ex.A.12), Ex.A.4 true copy of Rekha (Commission referred as Ex.A.16), Ex.A.5 true copy of appointment letter (Commission referred as ex.A.17), Ex.A.6 true copy of pay slip for the month of September, 2005, Ex.A.7 Provisional certificate (Computer application), Ex.A.8 provisional certificate of T. Ravi Sankar Reddy, Ex.A.9 xerox copy of Intermediate certificate (Computer application), Ex.A.10 xerox copy of Secondary School Certificate, were marked. 7. On behalf of the respondent in M.V.O.P, no witness was examined and any document was also not marked. 8. The Tribunal recorded the finding that P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye witnesses, proved the accident and that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver which smashed, the Qualis and inmates of the Qualis died on the spot including the cleaner of the lorry. 9. The Tribunal determined the monthly earnings as Rs.30,000/-. After deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of =15‘, it determined the total loss of dependency as Rs.36,15,000/- and adding to that, the funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/-, it awarded an amount of Rs.36,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization with proportionate costs and other fees. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the only submission, that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V Act. It was not under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. So the claimants were entitled for the compensation as per the schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act i.e under the structured formula, under the schedule, in which the maximum income was to be considered as Rs.40,000/- annually. Additionally, in peculiar circumstances only Rs.4,500/- (i.e., Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses) could be awarded. So the claimants were entitled for the compensation as per the schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act i.e under the structured formula, under the schedule, in which the maximum income was to be considered as Rs.40,000/- annually. Additionally, in peculiar circumstances only Rs.4,500/- (i.e., Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses) could be awarded. Any amount towards loss of the consortium could not be granted. He submitted that the judgment in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 was not applicable to claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. He submitted that the claimants could be awarded an amount of Rs.4,57,839/- only. 11. No representation for the respondents including claimants. 12. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: “A. Whether the claim of the claimant respondents is under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?” B. Whether the compensation awarded should have been as per the schedule applicable to the claims under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act? C. What would be the just and fair compensation? And at what rate of interest? Consideration of Points A & B: 14. Section 163-A of the M.V. Act reads as under: “163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” 15. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal and others, AIR 2007 SC 1609 , the Hon‘ble Apex Court held that the victim of an accident or his dependents have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act or under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle. 16. Para 27 Meena Variyal (supra) the Hon‘ble Apex Court is as under: “27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. 16. Para 27 Meena Variyal (supra) the Hon‘ble Apex Court is as under: “27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. (supra) was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163A of the Act providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.” 17. A perusal of the claim petition shows that its heading is claim application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Sections 140, 163-A of M.V.Act and Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules. The specific case of the claimants was that the lorry (offending vehicle) was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, without blowing horn, which dashed against the Qualis vehicle. The specific case of the claimants was that the lorry (offending vehicle) was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, without blowing horn, which dashed against the Qualis vehicle. The written statement of the insurance company shows that in para 5, the insurance company did not admit that the lorry was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner as was the case of claimants. The further case of the insurance company was that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. So, the negligence on the part of the lorry driver was denied and the claimants had to prove their case of negligence of the lorry driver. The Tribunal framed the issue and as is evident from the 1st issue, the same was as under: “whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry?” Further, the evidence was led by the claimants to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent. 18. Consequently, we are of the view that though the title of the claim petition was =under Sections 140 & 163-A of the M.V. Act‘, but in effect and substance, the claim was under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and was tried as a claim made under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, in which the negligence and the rashness of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimants had to prove, on evidence, which they successfully proved. Its not a case of =no fault liability‘, where the claimants had not to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle or they failed to prove the negligent driving of the driver but in spite thereof the claim was allowed. 19. We are of the considered view that it is not the mention of the section in the claim petition that governs. But, the substance of the claim petition and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, that shall determine, if the claim was being investigated and award was made under Sections 163-A or 166 of the M.V.Act. 20. But, the substance of the claim petition and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, that shall determine, if the claim was being investigated and award was made under Sections 163-A or 166 of the M.V.Act. 20. We may further refer to Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 . In which the Hon‘ble Apex Court held that the M.V. Act is in the nature of a social welfare legislation. The provisions as regard no fault liability evidently were inserted having regard to the fact that the road accidents in India had touched a new height and at least in some of the cases it was found that rash or negligent driving causing death or injury to the innocent persons could not be proved. The Hon‘ble Apex Court further held that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. It was held that the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income was upto Rs. 40,000/- could take the benefit of Section 163-A, it was further held that all other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. 21. Para 67 of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) is as under:- “67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.” 22. In the present case, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- from his avocation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was earning Rs.36,828/- per month. Consequently, the annual income of the deceased even as per the claimant‘s case was Rs.36,828/-X12= Rs.44,193/- which is above Rs.40,000/- annual. In the present case, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- from his avocation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was earning Rs.36,828/- per month. Consequently, the annual income of the deceased even as per the claimant‘s case was Rs.36,828/-X12= Rs.44,193/- which is above Rs.40,000/- annual. In view of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) the claim of the claimants was required to be determined in terms of Chapter –XII of the M.V. Act i.e under Section 166. Therefore, even if the submission of the appellant‘s counsel that the application as filed was titled under Section163-A of M.V. Act be accepted, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in trying the claim as under Section166 of the M.V.Act, a reference of which has also been made in para of the judgment of the Tribunal itself. Point-C: 23. We now proceed to determine, if the compensation as awarded is a just and fair compensation. 24. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation to the claimants. We would consider that aspect as well, in view of the settled legal position under different heads. 25. In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited (2022) 14 SCC 712 , 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. 26. Para Nos.9 and 10 in N.Jayasree (3rd 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. 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. 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 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.” 27. In Surekha v. Santosh (2021) 16 SCC 467 , where the High Court of Bombay though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just compensation amount ought to have been more, 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 as under: 2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance 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. Income: 28. Ex.A.5 is the agreement dated 03.08.2005 entered into between KANBAY Software India Private Limited and the deceased. Ex.A6 is the pay slip for the month of September. It shows that gross pay of Rs.44,958/- included arrears of Rs.12,797/- under different heads. The Tribunal determined the net monthly gross pay as Rs.32,961/-. It deducted the P.F contribution of Rs.2,080/-, income tax deduction of Rs.406/- and the profession tax of Rs.200/-. It arrived at the net salary of Rs.30,275/- per month and rounded it to Rs.30,000/- per month. 29. In Shyamwati Sharma and others vs. Karam Singh and others ( 2010 12 SCC 378 , the Hon‘ble Apex court has held in para No.9 as under:- "... We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc. should not be excluded from the income. We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc. should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased." 30. We are of the view that from the gross pay of Rs.44,958/-. Only the deduction of the I.T and the profession tax, which comes to Rs.606/- could be deducted. Consequently, we hold that the net monthly salary of the deceased was (i.e Rs.44,958-406- 200=Rs.44,352/-) for computation of compensation. Future prospects: 31. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. 32. 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.” 33. Consequently, we award 40% of established income, as future prospects, the deceased being below 40 years, as per para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra). Age, Multiplier & Deduction towards personal expenses: 34. The deceased was aged about 25 years as per the case of the claimants. The Tribunal determined the age as 28 years based on Ex.A.2 copy of the postmortem report. Age, Multiplier & Deduction towards personal expenses: 34. The deceased was aged about 25 years as per the case of the claimants. The Tribunal determined the age as 28 years based on Ex.A.2 copy of the postmortem report. We have perused the Ex.A.10 which is the Xerox copy of the Secondary School Certificate of the deceased, in which the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 29.08.1978. The date of the accident is 16.10.2005. So, on the date of the accident, the deceased was 27 years and two months of age. This slight difference in the age would not affect neither choosing the multiplier nor the future prospects consideration. At the age of the deceased, the multiplier as per Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 is 17 (age group of 25 to 30). The Tribunal applied the multiplier of =15‘, which is not correct. We accordingly, apply the correct multiplier of = 17‘. 35. The claimants being 3 in number, the Tribunal has correctly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deduction should be 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of the claim being under Section 163-A. We have already held that the claim is under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. 36. In Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs SarojammaAnd Another, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 142 the Hon‘ble Apex court has held that for determination of compensation on structured formula, reduction of income of deceased towards personal expenses is to be generally by 1/3rd and not by 50%. The relevant paras are as under: “8. As Schedule II provides for a structured formula, ordinarily, the same has to be adhered to. The structured formula itself stipulates reduction of income of the deceased by one-third in consideration of the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. 9. Whereas in determining an application for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal may be entitled to find out actual loss of damages suffered by the claimants, the formula having not envisaged such a contingency, we are of the opinion that ordinarily one-third should be deducted from the income of the deceased and not the half thereof. For determining the amount of compensation, the most relevant factor, therefore, is the income of the deceased. He was a tutor. He was admitted in the Army Teachers Training Institute. He had the requisite potential of becoming a teacher. His income, thus, having been estimated at Rs 3000 p.m. cannot be said to be on a very high side.” Consequently, we hold that the deduction of 1/3r made by the Tribunal is correct and is as per Sarla Verma (supra) 37. The claimants are entitled to following amounts as just & fair compensation. S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income (As per the Tribunal) Rs. 44,352/- x 12 = Rs. 5,32,224/- 2. Future Prospects Rs. 2,12,889/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs. 7,45,113/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e.1/3rd) Rs. 2,48,371/- 4. Total Annual loss Rs. 4,96,742/- 5. Multiplier of 17 at the age of 27 years i.e. 17 x 4,96,742/- = Rs. 84,44,620/- 6. Conventional Heads: i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 3) ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs. 86,26,120/- Interest: 38. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment/deposit. 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. 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 toMalarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 228 allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 39. Accordingly, the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 40. In the result, i) The appeal, of the Insurance Company is dismissed. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 228 allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 39. Accordingly, the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 40. 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.86,26,120/- as just and fair compensation, with interest @ 9% per annum, thereon, from the date of the claim petition till realization/deposit; 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 of the Tribunal. v) The costs throughout is allowed in favour of the Claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3, and against the appellant. 41. The claimants are not represented. The Tribunal is directed to ensure service of notice on them as also that the payment is made to them preferably in their respective bank accounts attached to their Aadar numbers, without unnecessary delay. 42. The District Legal Services Authority of the District shall also ensure to communicate this judgment to the claimants. 43. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal and also to the District Legal Services Authority of the District. 44. The Tribunal shall submit a report to this Court, through the Registrar (Judicial) on the above aspect, which shall be placed on the record of this appeal. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.