JUDGMENT 1. In the instant appeal is preferred by the appellants/petitioners (herein referred to as the petitioners) under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for the “Act”) against the award dated 1.3.2017 passed by 14th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No.1700649/2015 with a prayer to enhance the awarded amount of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Heard Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Shri Mayank Upadhayay, learned counsel for the nd respondent/New India Insurance Company Limited. Notice of 1st respondent served no one entered appearance. 4. The accident is not in dispute. The Mahindra Max Vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.M.P.-05-DA-0324 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being insured with the 2nd respondent and there being no breach of policy conditions, is a finding in Para No.5 (Column No.6) in the Table of the Award, which had attained finality. The 2nd respondent/New India Insurance Company Limited has not challenged its liability. The appellants having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, filed the present appeal. 5. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 24.12.2013 deceased (Harsh) who is son of the appellants No.1 and 2 and brother of 3rd appellant was going from Ratlam to Nagda on his motor cycle. On the way, when he reached Khachrod Road By-pass Junction, the non-applicant No.1 (1st respondent) driving the Mahindra Max Vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.M.P.-05-DA-0324 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from behind, due to which the rider of the motor cycle (deceased) fell down and sustained serious head injuries and died on the spot, later the matter was reported to the police by Lakhan Singh Panwar against the driver of the offending vehicle (non-applicant No.1). Based on the report lodged by the Lakhan Singh Panwar, a case in crime No.513/2013, Nagda - Police Station was registered for the offence under section 304-A IPC and FIR was issued and after investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the non-applicant No.1 to the Court. 6. Based on the report lodged by the Lakhan Singh Panwar, a case in crime No.513/2013, Nagda - Police Station was registered for the offence under section 304-A IPC and FIR was issued and after investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the non-applicant No.1 to the Court. 6. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years, as per the certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and he was hale and healthy and used to work in Forest Department as Untrained Forest Servant drawing salary of Rs.11,140/- per month, as per the payment slip of September, 2013 signed by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ratlam, marked and exhibit as P/37. He was unmarried and contributing his entire income to the parents of the deceased and filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest before the Tribunal on the account of death of the deceased (Harsh Kumar Johar) in the alleged road accident. 7. 1st respondent/non-applicant filed the written statement denied the averments mentioned in the claim application and further he stated that the vehicle Mahindra Max (Jeep) bearing No.M.P.05-DA-0324 was insured by non-applicant No.2 from 8.11.2013 to 7.11.2014, therefore, the claim against the non-applicant No.1 are liable to be dismissed. 8. Non-applicant No.2 filed written statement and denied allegations made in the claim application and further averred that the alleged accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, while driving the vehicle. Further averred that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver (Non-applicant No.1) of the Jeep bearing No.M.P.09/CH/0324 and the said vehicle not insured with the Insurance Company/Non-applicant No.2 on the date of accident, therefore, the non-applicant No.2 is not responsible for payment of compensation. Further averred that no information about the accident has been given to the Insurance Company either by the non-applicant No.1 or by owner of the vehicle. At the time of alleged accident the driver of the Jeep in question did not have license to drive the vehicle and the said license was not valid. Further averred that owner of the Jeep in question did not have permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle, therefore, the claim application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed and the non-applicant No.2 is not responsible for the compensation. 9. Further averred that owner of the Jeep in question did not have permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle, therefore, the claim application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed and the non-applicant No.2 is not responsible for the compensation. 9. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: Considerable Questions 1. Did the applicant number-01 cause an accident on 24.12.2013 at 10:45 AM, at Khachrod Road, by-ass Tiraha, Police Station-Nagda, District-Ujjain by driving his own vehicle Mahindra Max No.M.P.-05/DA/0324 rashly and negligently and by hitting a motor-cycle? 2. Did Harsh Johar die as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident? 3. Are the owner of the vehicle, motor-cycle, driver and the Insurance Company necessary parties in the case? 4. Whether the said accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the accident vehicle motor-cycle? 5. Did applicant No.1 have a valid driving license? 6. Was the vehicle being driven by respondent No.01 in violation of the provisions of the insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act? 7. Whether the applicants and non-applicants should be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.50 lacs as compensation for the loss caused to Harsh Johar due to his death as a result of injuries sustained in the accident? 8. Aid and expenditure? 10. In order to establish their claim, at the time in enquiry PW/1 and PW/2 were examined and Ex.P-1 to P-23 were got marked on behalf of the claimants/petitioners and no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents/non-applicants and no documents were marked on their behalf. 11. The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, passed an award for a sum of Rs.7,60,240/- as compensation. The breakup details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, are tabulated hereunder: S. No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded in 1 Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,35,240/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 7,60,240/- 12. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award, the petitioners being the appellants, filed the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘11’ which should have been ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award, the petitioners being the appellants, filed the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘11’ which should have been ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under various conventional heads by following the Hon'ble apex Court's judgments National Insurance Company Limited v.Pranay Sethi Case [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. Further, he would submit that by the date of the accident deceased was aged about 26 years and working as Untrained Forest Servant, the pay slip for the month of September, 2013 three months prior to the accident, drawn salary of Rs.11,140/- per month, the relevant pay slip signed by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ratlam under Ex.P-7, he being a public servant and he will not issue any false pay slip and the salary amount credited in the account of deceased bearing No.33136954073, he would further submit that the award passed by learned Tribunal is inadequate in nature and therefore, the same may be modified by suitably enhancing the compensation. Further, he would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error while passing the award and needs interference of this Court and prayed to enhance the compensation by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. Learned counsel for the 2th respondent/New India Insurance Company Limited would submit that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased and awarded compensation, the award passed by Tribunal in accordance with apex Court Judgment and there was no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Further he would submit that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to cause the accident, however, the learned Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to contributory negligence and awarded compensation. Further submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity and needs no interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:-- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement ? 2. Further submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity and needs no interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:-- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement ? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court ? POINT Nos. 1 & 2: 16. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed the Issue No.1 as to whether the applicant No.1 caused the accident on 24.12.2013 by driving his own vehicle Mahindra Max (Jeep) No.M.P.05-DA-0324 at high speed and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle to which Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed at Para No.18 of the Award that the driver of the non-applicant No.1 drove the offending vehicle Mahindra Max at high speed and accident was caused by hitting the motor-cycle and deceased died on the spot, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1 of the offending vehicle, due to which the deceased caused severe injuries and died at the spot. 17. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the accident had taken place on 24.12.2013 when the deceased was the rider of the motor cycle and offending vehicle bearing No.M.P.05-DA-0324 came behind hit the motor cycle and deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The claimants / parents and the brother of the deceased are claiming compensation on the ground that deceased working as Untrained Forest Servant and drawn Rs.11,140/- per month by the date of death and he was unmarried and the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income Rs.11,140/- as per the pay-slip (Ex.P-37) issued by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ratlam. 18. To grant compensation under various heads, now it is necessary to refer to the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), wherein, at Para-18, it was held as follows :-- “18. 18. To grant compensation under various heads, now it is necessary to refer to the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), wherein, at Para-18, it was held as follows :-- “18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.” 19. A perusal of Date of Birth certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal that the deceased (Harsh) Date of Birth shown 22.7.1987, therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 25 to 26 years and he was unmarried. Based on the said document, this Court has taken the age of the deceased as 26 years since the deceased was Forest Servant by the date of accident and between the age group of 25 to 26, the Tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier of ‘11’ instead of ‘17’ contrary to the guild-lines laid down in Sarla Verma’s (Supra) wherein, the loss of dependency was thus, re-assessed at para 42 of the judgment, which reads as under :-- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 20. In the instant case, evidently, the deceased was survived by parents and brother, who are the appellants/claimants and unmarried by the date of his death. Therefore, the number of his dependents family members is ‘three’. According to Sarla Verma's case (supra), 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On this aspect, the observation of the Hon'ble apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), at paras-30, 31 and 32, is as under :-- “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 standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed 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 parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. 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 parent/s 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 dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, 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 dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where 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”. 21. In the instant case, the deceased was unmarried by the date of the accident and petitioners/claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. As per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On an overall view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 11,140/- as per the salary certificate issued by Assistant Conservator of the Forest, Ratlam in Ex.-P-27 the annual income would be worked out Rs.1,33,680/- (Rs.11,140/- × 12 = Rs.1,33,680/-) 50% of the said amount would be arrived at Rs.66,840/- (Rs.1,33,680 × 50% = Rs.66,840/-). After deducting the same towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income of the deceased would be arrived at Rs.66,840/- (Rs.1,33,680/- (-) Rs.66,840/- = Rs.66,840/-). 22. After deducting the same towards his personal and living expenses, the annual income of the deceased would be arrived at Rs.66,840/- (Rs.1,33,680/- (-) Rs.66,840/- = Rs.66,840/-). 22. As the deceased was found to be ‘25 - 26’ years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘17’ instead of ‘11’ in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Having applied the said principles and the multiplier, the loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs.11,36,280/- (Rs.66,840/- × 17 = Rs.11,36,280/-). This Court finds that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under loss of dependency. A reading of the Tribunal award, makes it clear that the approach of the learned Tribunal does not accord at all with current judicial opinion. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,36,280/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’, which would be substantive. 23. In the instant case, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, in view of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi. (supra) Funeral Expenses: 24. Under this conventional head the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The same is reduced from Rs25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- (as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case). Loss of Estate: 25. Under this conventional head, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount. The Claimants are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case. Loss of Consortium : 26. The mother and father of the deceased (appellants/claimants No.1 and 2) are entitled to be award towards loss of consortium under the head ‘filial consortium’ as held by the Hon'ble apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] @ Rs.40,000/- each, as held in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). Consequently, in addition, the appellants/claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled to the above amount towards ‘filial consortium’. 27. Consequently, in addition, the appellants/claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled to the above amount towards ‘filial consortium’. 27. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Hon'ble apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under : “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.” 28. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. S. No. Head of Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount 1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,35,240/- Rs. 11,36,280/- (Rs. 11,140/- x 12 = Rs. 1,33,680/- 50% = Rs. 66,840 x 17 = 11,36,280/-) 2. Loss of Estate -------- Rs. 15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/- (Reduced) 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000 each to Claimants 1 and 2 (mother and father of the deceased) Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 7,60,240/- Rs. 12,46,280/- 29. In the case of Kavita Balothiya & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar & anr. [Supreme Today 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 630] Supreme Court recently held in para 5 as follows :-- Our view, is fortified by the decision of this Court in the Case of Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ], wherein, it is held in para 5 as under : “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. (See the Judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ], (b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (c) Ibrahim v. Raju [ (2011) 10 SCC 634 ]).” 30. As per the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa (supra), under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get more compensation than claimed, but the Tribunal did not pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather, it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable and the claimants are entitled to more compensation than the amount awarded, though they might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition. 31. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the Judgments supra, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and thereby, enhanced the compensation from Rs.7,60,240/- to Rs.12,46,280/-. 32. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.7,60,240/- to Rs.12,46,280/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment, against the Non-applicant No.2/New India Insurance Company Limited/Insurer. 32. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.7,60,240/- to Rs.12,46,280/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment, against the Non-applicant No.2/New India Insurance Company Limited/Insurer. 33. Non-applicant No.2/New India Insurance Company Limited/Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be\ taken out against them. 34. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced compensation amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed (As per the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited) (supra). 35. On such deposit, the claimants/appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. 36. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the terms and directions as above. 37. The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. 38. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.