JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 459 of 2014 dated 30.07.2016. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 1035 (hereinafter referred as “crime lorry”). The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the husband and children of one J. Vijaya Gowri (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are driver and owner/insured of the said crime lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: (i) On 11.09.2014 at about 02.20 p.m. while the deceased along with 2nd claimant travelling on scooter as pillion rider and when they reached near Gn-Bible College, Opposite Kranthi Rolling shop Vijayawada, the crime lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn dashed right side of the scooter of the deceased, resulted, the deceased died on the spot. (ii) The deceased was working as staff nurse at ESI hospital and getting salary of Rs.53,877/- per month. Being legal representatives and dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.85,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime lorry. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2/driver and owner remained e-xparte before the Tribunal. 6. The respondent No. 3/insurer of the crime lorry filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the concerned police failed to follow the mandatory provision of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act seeks prosecution under Section 147, 149 and 170 of the Act; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the deceased J. Vijaya Gouri died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 1035? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8, X.1 and X.2 were marked. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8, X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, the 1st respondent/driver was examined as RW-1, Exs.B.1 and B.2 were exhibited. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver as well 2nd claimant, apportioned their liability as 90% and 10% respectively, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.66,01,508/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 10. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the insurer of the crime lorry. 11. Heard Sri Sk. Rafi, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/claimants. 12. Sri Sk. Rafi, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken contributory negligence @ 50% on the part of the rider of two wheeler, who is 2nd claimant and said to be minor, not having driving license to ride the same; that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.55,290/- per month and it can be taken after deducting income tax as well education cess; that Tribunal ought not to have granted future prospects since the son of the deceased was given job on compassionate grounds; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material placed on record in proper perspective and erroneously awarded compensation to the claimants and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In support of his contentions, relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, 2008 (3) SCC 748 . 13. In support of his contentions, relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, 2008 (3) SCC 748 . 13. Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the crime lorry only; that there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle in causing the incident; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation even without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants without any appeal or cross objections and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. E. Suseelamma, 2023 SCC Online AP 1725. 14. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the rider of the motorcycle, who is 2nd claimant, in causing the incident? 2. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 3. To what relief? 15. POINT NO. 1: On this point, the Tribunal held that the liability and negligence of the 1st respondent as well 2nd claimant fixed at 90% and 10% respectively in causing the incident. But, it is quite astonishing that nothing was discussed in the award passed by the tribunal regarding the evidence placed on record, how to such apportionment of liability arrived by the Tribunal or to attribute contributory negligence on the part of the 2nd claimant by stating that since he has no driving license to ride the motorcycle caused the incident. 16. However, it is not in dispute about involvement of crime lorry as well motorcycle of the 2nd claimant and death of the deceased in the incident. During cross examination it is categorically admitted by the 2nd claimant as PW-2 that by the time of accident, he was riding scooter and he has not crossed 18 years, as such, he has no D.L. by the time of accident, lorry came from his back side and dashed him from side. During cross examination it is categorically admitted by the 2nd claimant as PW-2 that by the time of accident, he was riding scooter and he has not crossed 18 years, as such, he has no D.L. by the time of accident, lorry came from his back side and dashed him from side. Thereby, it is crystal clear that by the date of accident, the 2nd claimant, who is the rider of the motorcycle has no driving license to ride the same. Albeit, it is evident from the testimony of PW-2, who is eyewitness to the incident, coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 F.I.R. and charge sheet respectively, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent only. Except the bare testimony of RW-1, who is driver of the crime lorry, nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 as well Exs.A.1 and A.2. 17. At this juncture, now, this Court has to verify whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the 2nd claimant in the absence of driving license to ride the motorcycle by the time of incident. No doubt, the lack of driving license can be taken as violation of Rules, but in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the same is reason for the incident, when it is categorically proved that the 1st respondent driven the crime lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused in the incident. 18. Now, it is relevant to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 750 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court refereed its earlier pronouncement Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436 and categorically observed at paragraph No. 8 and 9 as follows: “8. Insofar as the judgment of the High Court is concerned, the Division Bench has placed a considerable degree of importance on the fact that there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motorcycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eyewitness. We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving license, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar (supra) where it was held as follows: “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence. 10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.” 9. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4.60 lakhs which was wrongly disallowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. In view of the above settled legal position, the fixing of 10% liability on the 2nd claimant on the ground of absence of driving license, when the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, nothing but wrong appreciation of the material available on record and the same is liable for interference. Thereby, the Tribunal erred in fixing the said liability on the 2nd claimant in causing the incident. This point is answered accordingly. 20. POINT NO. Thereby, the Tribunal erred in fixing the said liability on the 2nd claimant in causing the incident. This point is answered accordingly. 20. POINT NO. 2: It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.55,290/- per month and it can be taken after deducting income tax as well education cess. 21. Coming to the just compensation entitled by the claimants is concerned, as stated supra, no appeal or cross objection is preferred by the claimants. However, it is the contention of the claimants that even no appeal preferred by the claimants, this Court can enhance the compensation. 22. On such plea, as per the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in E. Suseelamma case (referred to supra), by referring plethora of pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can enhance the compensation, if so they are entitled, without any appeal or cross objections. In the said judgment, it was categorically held that “We are therefore of the considered view that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 rule 33 are to be invoked which are being invoked accordingly, and we find that there is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation.” 23. Thereby, this Court can decide the just compensation entitled by the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections preferred by the claimants. 24. The Tribunal taken the income of deceased @ Rs.55,290/- per month under Ex.X.2 pay particulars of deceased. It is not in dispute that by the time of incident, the deceased is working as Staff Nurse and under Ex.X.2 earned Rs.63,886/- per month towards gross salary and Rs.56,766/- towards net salary. As per Ex.A.8 the amount of tax deducted from the salary of the deceased is Rs.14,290/- per annum. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.6,66,902/- (Rs.6,81,192 - Rs.14,290) per annum after deducting tax. 25. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No. 39 as follows: 39. 25. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No. 39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. 32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 26. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case the deceased had a permanent job, an addition of 30% should be made, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50..... (Emphasis supplied) 27. In the present case as per the above said decision, 30% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 48 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.8,66,973/- (Rs.6,66,902/- + Rs.2,00,071/-). 28. In the case on hand, there are three claimants depending on the deceased, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.5,77,982/-. 29. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande and Another, 2017 (3) SCC 315 at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows: “11........it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as ‘principle of multiplier’ has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. 12........While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. 12........While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be. ...........there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.....” (Emphasis supplied) 30. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e. 48 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.75,13,766/- (Rs.5,77,982/- x 13). 31. CONVENTIONAL HEADS: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1683, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1683 and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 we award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants, being Rs.1,45,200/- for loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). 32. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants, being Rs.1,45,200/- for loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). 32. INTEREST: The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7.5% per annum In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 the 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% per annum from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 the Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% per annum and in Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1683 the Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Accordingly, on the aforesaid amount the claimants are granted interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 33. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S. No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased Rs. 6,66,902/- per annum 2 30% of above to be added as future prospects (Rs. 6,66,902/- + Rs. 2,00,071/-) Rs. 8,66,973/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs. 5,77,982/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13 (Rs. 5,77,982/- x 13) Rs. 75,13,766/- 5 Spousal and Parental consortium (husband and two children) Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 3) 6 Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs. 76,95,266/- 34. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.66,01,508/- to Rs.76,95,266/-. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 35. POINT No. 3: In view of the findings on point Nos. 18,150/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs. 76,95,266/- 34. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.66,01,508/- to Rs.76,95,266/-. Thus, this appoint is answered accordingly. 35. POINT No. 3: In view of the findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and liability to pay the same to the claimants. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable for dismissal. 36. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However, in view of the above observations, enhancing the compensation from Rs.66,01,508/- to Rs.76,95,266/- with interest at 9% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against driver, owner and insurer of the crime lorry. The appellant/respondent No. 3/insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation equally, they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon and the apportionment made by the Tribunal towards entitlement of the claimants for compensation shall remain intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 37. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 38. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.