JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 20.08.2018 passed in O.P.No.16 of 2017, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad, the 3rd respondent in the said O.P./Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased-Sri T.Ilaiah, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1 to 3 claiming compensation of Rs.23,60,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-T.Ilaiah in a Motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.05.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. and respondent No.4 is the General Manager of the Auto Mobile Show Room, who got added as per orders in I.A.No.659 of 2017, dated 18.01.2018. As stated by the petitioners, on 04.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., when the deceased- T.Ilaiah was proceeding on his Auto bearing No.AP-01-Y-803 and when he crossed near Sowbhagya Toll Plaza at Kasipet, one Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-3725, which came there in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Auto of the deceased. As a result, the Auto fell down and the deceased sustained Head injury and immediately, he was shifted to Sairam Multi Speciality Hospital, Karimnagar, where he was treated as inpatient and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 05.05.2012 at 6.00 PM. It is further submitted by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 29 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Auto driver and was contributing the same for the welfare and maintenance of the family and due to his untimely death in the accident, the petitioners lost their source of income and put to sufferance. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.23,60,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the subject Tractor bearing No.AP-01Y-3725. 4. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the subject Tractor, remained ex-parte. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.23,60,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the subject Tractor bearing No.AP-01Y-3725. 4. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the subject Tractor, remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the Tractor, filed his written statement stating that as the Tractor was insured with respondent No.3 and that the policy was in force as on the date of accident, as such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No.3, who is the insurer of the subject Tractor, filed its counter stating that there is no insurance policy given by respondent No.3 and that the cover note mentioned in the petition was issued to another person, as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the driver of the subject Tractor do not possess valid driving license and that the petitioners have to prove the manner of accident, age, occupation, income of deceased and loss of income and that the quantum of compensation sought is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 5. Respondent No.4, who is General Manager of Auto Mobile Show Room, filed his counter stating that respondent No.2 produced insurance policy of respondent No.3 in April, 2011 and took the Tractor for Pooja and subsequently obtained Bank loan and then paid sale consideration and took delivery of Tractor in the month of June, 2011 and that the Insurance policy produced by respondent No.2 was submitted to RTA officials and based on it, registration was done and that respondent No.4 did not collect insurance amount from respondent No.2 and that the petitioners unnecessarily made him as a party to the petition, as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against him. 6. Based on the rival contentions made by the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether Thammanaveni Ilaiah died in the accident that occurred on 04.05.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., near Toll plaza, Kasipet, within the limits of P.S., Kasipet? 2. Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-3725? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of Thammanaveni Ilaiah, if so how much? and against which of the respondents? 4. 2. Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-3725? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of Thammanaveni Ilaiah, if so how much? and against which of the respondents? 4. Whether the tractor involved in the accident has valid insurance on the date of accident? 5. To what relief? 7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1, got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. 8. On behalf of Respondent No.3/Insurance Company, one Senior Executive Legal Officer was examined as RW1 and through him, Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 9. Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the subject Tractor, examined himself as RW2 and got marked Ex.B4 on his behalf. 10. On behalf of respondent No.4, one representative of their Company was examined as RW3. 11. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.8,66,200/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in O.P. 12. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 13. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company are that the Insurance Company never issued any policy to the crime vehicle and the cover note produced before the Tribunal was fake and fabricated one. It is also contended that the owner of the crime vehicle has created a fake and fabricated cover note and a perusal of cover note bearing No.MC1001490039 shows that it was issued in favour of Mr.Vodeepalli Mallesh for the period from 10.06.2011 to 09.06.2012 for the Tractor and Trailer bearing Engine No.NCPLG 151 and Chassis No.NCPLG151, but not to the Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-3725 and AP-01-Y-3726 belonging to Mr.Gopathi Raju. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing liability on par with the owner of the Tractor solely on the ground that the Insurance Company has a tie up with respondent No.8 herein, who is the dealer of Tractor and who used to issue blank cover notes and collects premium once in 15 days and hence, they should be held responsible to indemnify the petitioners and hence, the Insurance Company ought to have been exempted from its liability. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal granted excess amounts under the head of non-pecuniary damages which is limited to Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others and that the learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest @ 9 % per annum and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners contended that it is clear from the evidence of RWs 1 to 3 that there is insurance tie up with respondent No.3/Insurance Company and respondent No.4/Dealer of Mahindra Tractor to fill up the cover notes before giving them to owner of vehicles and having undertaken to give insurance policies based on the said cover notes, the mistake, if any, committed would be by respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 for which the third parties/claim petitioners cannot be made to suffer. Hence, respondent No.3/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th and also erred in considering future prospects @ 35% instead of 40% and hence prayed to enhance the same by awarding just compensation to the petitioners. 15. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity? POINT:- 16. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. On behalf of the claim petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW1 and got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. On behalf of the claim petitioners, petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW1 and got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that Police of Kasipet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2012 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos.AP-01Y-3725 and AP-01Y-3726, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ex.A3 is the inquest report which says that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor Bearing No.AP-01Y-3725. Ex.A4 is the Postmortem examination report wherein the cause of death was due to ‘Haemorrhage and shock’ on account of ‘Head injury’. Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report wherein the occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Ex.A6 is the Accident information report under Form 54. Ex.A7 is the original SSC certificate of the deceased and Ex.A8 is the Driving license of the deceased. (Ex.A7 & A8 are marked with consent). 17. PW2, who is working as a Toll Gate Cashier and who is an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence that on 04.05.2012 at about 9.15 P.M, near Sowbhagya Tole gate of Somagudem Village of Kasipet Mandal, one Tractor bearing No.AP- 01Y-3725 along with Trolley bearing No.AP-01Y-3726, which is loaded by sand, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto coming in the opposite direction. As a result, the driver of the Auto fell down, sustained injuries and died. 18. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos.AP-01Y-3725 and AP-01Y-372615 and the same is not disputed by any of the parties. 19. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company never issued any policy to the crime vehicle and the cover note produced before the Tribunal was fake and fabricated one. 20. 19. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company never issued any policy to the crime vehicle and the cover note produced before the Tribunal was fake and fabricated one. 20. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of RW1, who is working as Senior Executive Legal in their Company. He deposed that their company never issued any policy in favour of the respondent No.2-Gopathi Raju in respect of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-01Y-3725 and AP-01Y-3726 at any point of time, more particularly the cover note bearing No.MC1001490039. He further deposed that as per office records, the office copy of cover note bearing No.MC1001490039 (Ex.B2) and its insurance policy (Ex.B3) are related to one Mr.Vodeepalli Mallesh in respect of his Tractor with Engine No.NCPLG151 and Chassis No.NCPLG151 vide policy number OG-12-1810-1811-00000132 with coverage period from 10.06.2011 to 09.06.2012. Hence, the subject Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-01Y-3725 and AP-01Y-3726, which caused the accident, was not at all insured with the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Further, there is no mention about Tractor number or chassis number or Engine number in Ex.B4 which makes it clear that it is a fabricated one and the same cannot be taken into consideration. 21. Further, a perusal of Ex.B4- Copy of cover note which was marked through respondent No.2, who is the owner of the subject Tractor, shows that it was not valid for risk starting before 16.03.2011 and after 15.06.2011. As the date of accident is 04.05.2012, the said cover note becomes invalid and the same cannot be taken into consideration. 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court considers that Ex.B4-cover note is false and fabricated one and as it is proved that the Insurance Company has not issued any policy in favour of respondent No.2 in O.P./owner of the Tractor, hence, it cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the petitioners along with respondent Nos.1 &2, who are the driver and owner of the subject Tractor. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby exempts the Insurance Company from its liability in paying compensation to the petitioners. 23. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby exempts the Insurance Company from its liability in paying compensation to the petitioners. 23. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as there is no documentary proof filed by the petitioners to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Auto driver, the learned Tribunal took the wages of daily wage earner and considering the date of accident, fixed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/-, which this Court finds reasonable and needs no interference. As the age of the deceased is less than 40 years, 40% is added towards his future prospects. Hence, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,600/-. Though the number of dependants are five in number, but the learned Tribunal did not consider petitioner No.5, who is father of the deceased, as a dependant as he is a retired employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and is drawing monthly pension and hence deducted 1/3rd of income by considering the number of dependants as 4. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104, wherein, it is held that if the number of dependant family members is 4-6, then 1/4th of the income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby deduct 1/4th of the income instead of 1/3rd. towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.4,200/- per month Rs.50,400/- per annum. After applying the relevant multiplier ‘16’ as per the age of the deceased, then the total loss of income comes to Rs.8,06,400/-. 24. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal granted excess amounts under the head of non-pecuniary damages which is limited to Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.Pranay Sethi & others and also awarded excess interest @ 9 % per annum. This Court by relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. This Court by relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others ( 2017 ACJ 2700 ), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had fixed reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, which in all comes to Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry 10% enhancement for every three years), is inclined to award a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Further, considering the fact that the claim petitioners 2 & 3 being minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,63,400/-. 25. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha & Ors. Vs.Santosh & Ors, 2020 ACJ 2156, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation even though there is no cross-appeal or crossobjections, hereby award total compensation of Rs.9,63,400/- to the claimants. 26. Also, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35, reduces the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. 27. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the amounts awarded under the Head of Non-pecuniary damages from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.77,000/- and also reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. However, the respondents/claim petitioners are awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,63,400/- which was enhanced from Rs.8,66,200/- and which carries interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.6 & 7 in the Appeal, who are the Driver and Owner of the Tractor, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment made, the respondents/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. Upon such payment made, the respondents/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. However, it is also made clear that the liability imposed against the appellant/Insurance Company shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.