JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for appellant in MACMA 841/2012 and 834/2012 and Sri J.S.C.Sekhar, learned counsel for appellants/claimants in MACMA 654/2014 & 754/2014. 2. The appeal in MACMA No.841/2012 directed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.197/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, where the learned Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, on an application filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for the death of Nambaru Somunaidu (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.12.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. near Plywood Factory, Gotivada Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The appeal in MACMA No.654/2014 directed by the claimants/appellants, for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.197/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. 4. The appeal in MACMA No.834/2012 directed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.198/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, where the learned Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,13,970/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, on an application filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for the injuries sustained by Sabbavarapu Sanni Babu in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.12.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. near Plywood Factory, Gotivada Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The appeal in MACMA No.754/2014 is directed by the claimant/appellant, for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.198/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. 6. Therefore, the impugned motor vehicle accident considered by the Tribunal relates to same incident. Therefore, the issue and evidence in respect of rash and negligence which shall be determined in the appeals is same. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the impugned motor vehicle accident considered by the Tribunal relates to same incident. Therefore, the issue and evidence in respect of rash and negligence which shall be determined in the appeals is same. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 8. The case of the petitioners/claimants in both claim petitions is that on 23.12.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. Nambaru Somunaidu (hereinafter referred to as deceased) along with Sabbavarapu Sannibabu (hereinafter referred as injured/claimant) were travelling on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 31P 7637; on the way to Sabbavaram, the motor cycle reached a place near Plywood Factory, Gotivada village at about 10.00 p.m. on 23.12.2007; the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.KA 34 7476, came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle; as a result, the deceased and the injured/claimant fell down; the deceased died at the spot; the injured/claimant received grievous injuries; the Station House Officer, Sabbavaram P.S. registered case in Cr.No.124/2007 for the offence punishable U/secs.304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code; police conducted investigation and laid police report (charge sheet); the doctor conducted post mortem examination and issued certificate; the Motor Vehicle Inspector issued report; The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.197/2008 contended that they are dependants of the deceased i.e., 1st claimant is the wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are the children and 4th claimant is mother of the deceased; the deceased was aged 33 years, working as Kalasi in Chatterji Godown, Visakhapatnam, and getting Rs.6,000/- per month; therefore, they filed claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation. 9. The injured claimant in M.V.O.P.No.198/2008 contended that he sustained multiple injuries and spent nearly Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment and he was advised bed rest for six months on account of the injuries, he became disabled person and lost his earning capacity and therefore, he filed petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the personal injuries. 10. 9. The injured claimant in M.V.O.P.No.198/2008 contended that he sustained multiple injuries and spent nearly Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment and he was advised bed rest for six months on account of the injuries, he became disabled person and lost his earning capacity and therefore, he filed petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the personal injuries. 10. The contention of the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle in both the claim petitions is that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle; and that the driver of the lorry did not commit any act of rash or negligence; the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence; the lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent and it was in force at the time of accident; and therefore, the 2nd respondent shall indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent. 11. The contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in both the claim petitions is that as per the FIR, driver and pillion rider of the motor cycle were in intoxicated condition; and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of driver of the motor cycle; and therefore, the offending vehicle did not contribute anything for cause of accident; the other contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the lorry i.e., offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured i.e., owner of the offending vehicle. 12. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in MVOP No.197/2008: 1. Whether the deceased Nambaru Somunaidu met with motor accident on 23.12.2007 and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA 34 7476 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 13. In MVOP 197/2008, to substantiate the claim of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W-1 and the injured/claimant was examined as P.W-2 and six documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6 respectively. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 13. In MVOP 197/2008, to substantiate the claim of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W-1 and the injured/claimant was examined as P.W-2 and six documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, four witnesses were examined i.e., Official of the Insurance Company, Motor Vehicles Inspector, driver of the lorry and owner of the lorry as R.Ws-1 to 4 respectively and nine documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-9 respectively. 14. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence relating to the age and income of the deceased at the time of accident, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally towards just compensation. 15. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in MVOP No.198/2008: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 23.12.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.KA 34 7476 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 16. In MVOP 198/2008, the claimant was examined as P.W-1 and the doctor A.Gopala Krishna of Sanjeevani Hospital, Visakhapatnam, was examined as P.W-2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-9 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, four witnesses were examined i.e., Official of the Insurance Company, Motor Vehicles Inspector, driver of the lorry and owner of the lorry as R.Ws-1 to 4 respectively and eight documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-8 respectively. 17. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-9, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only. 17. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-9, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 regarding the entitlement of compensation, on consideration of the evidence of the injured/claimant and the doctor/P.W-2, awarded a sum of Rs.2,13,970/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally towards just compensation. 18. The contention of the Insurance Company in both the appeals is that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and therefore, insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured i.e., owner of the offending vehicle. 19. The contention of the claimants in MVOP 197/2008 is that the learned Tribunal did not award just compensation as per law for the death of N.Somunaidu in the motor vehicle accident as per law. 20. The contention of the claimant/injured in MVOP 198/2008 is that the learned Tribunal did not award just compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident as per law. 21. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in all the appeals are as under: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle or the driver of the lorry? 2. Whether the insurer of the lorry is not liable to indemnify the insured? 3) Whether the compensation awarded for the death of deceased N.Somunaidu is not just compensation? 4) Whether compensation awarded for the personal injuries to the injured/claimant is not just compensation? 5) To what relief? 22. 2. Whether the insurer of the lorry is not liable to indemnify the insured? 3) Whether the compensation awarded for the death of deceased N.Somunaidu is not just compensation? 4) Whether compensation awarded for the personal injuries to the injured/claimant is not just compensation? 5) To what relief? 22. POINT No.1: The case of the claimants in both the case is that on 23.12.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased and S.Sanni Babu i.e., injured/claimant were going to Sabbavaram on a motor vehicle bearing No.AP 31P 7637; the deceased was riding the motor cycle, and injured/claimant as pillion rider; they reached a place near Plywood Factory, Gotivada village at about 10.00 p.m. on their way to Sabbavaram; the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.KA 34 7476 came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner; dashed the motor cycle; as a result, the deceased and the injured/claimant fell down and sustained injuries; the deceased died at the spot; and the injured/claimant was shifted to a hospital. 23. The contention of the Insurance Company is that as per Ex.A-1 FIR, the deceased and the injured/claimant consumed alcohol and deceased was driving the motor cycle in an intoxication condition, and therefore, he drove the motor cycle very fast; as a result, dashed the lorry on its back side, fell down, sustained injuries and rider died at the spot. 24. Therefore, contention of the claimants as well as Insurance Company would disclose that the accident was occurred on 23.12.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. near Plywood Factory, Gotivada village, the deceased and the injured/claimant were travelling on the motor cycle bearing No.AP 31P 7637, and there was a collision between the motor cycle and the lorry bearing No.KA 34 7476. The claimants contend that the lorry came rashly, in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle. 25. Whereas the Insurance Company would contend that the motor cycle came rashly behind the lorry and dashed the lorry on its back. 26. Sabbavaram Police registered FIR basing on a report presented by brother of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that he was not an eye witness. The eye witnesses examined in the case are the injured/claimant and driver of the lorry. 27. 26. Sabbavaram Police registered FIR basing on a report presented by brother of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that he was not an eye witness. The eye witnesses examined in the case are the injured/claimant and driver of the lorry. 27. The injured/claimant in his testimony deposed that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry stating that the lorry came in opposite direction, at high speed and dashed the motor cycle. The respondents i.e., owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cross-examined him at length, but nothing was elicited to probable the story mentioned in Ex.A-1 FIR. 28. The driver of the lorry was examined as R.W-3 in both the cases, It appears that he was not tendered for cross-examination of the claimants. According to his testimony in chief, the deceased drove the motor cycle in a drunken condition and dashed the lorry on the rear side. He further deposed that the deceased drove the vehicle in a drunken condition. The police report discloses that he fled away soon after the accident. 29. Now the question is which version has to be believed, the injured/claimant or driver of the lorry? 30. As stated above, nothing was elicited during the crossexamination of the injured/claimant to probable the plea of the Insurance Company or the version deposed by the driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry was not tendered for cross-examination. The author of FIR was not examined. Admittedly police conducted investigation basing on Ex.A-1 and laid report (charge sheet) for the offence punishable U/secs.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code against driver of the lorry as accused, on the ground that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, neither the insurance company nor owner of lorry challenged the said report before any forum. No information is forth coming from the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that his enquiry revealed that the driver of the motor cycle was in a drunken condition at the time of accident. His evidence not disclosing the manner in which the accident was occurred. 31. The claimants filed Post Mortem Report of the deceased. It is not disclosing that alcohol was found in the VICESRA of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the injured/claimant was shifted to the hospital, and doctor examined him and issued would certificate. His evidence not disclosing the manner in which the accident was occurred. 31. The claimants filed Post Mortem Report of the deceased. It is not disclosing that alcohol was found in the VICESRA of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the injured/claimant was shifted to the hospital, and doctor examined him and issued would certificate. It is also not disclosing that he was in intoxicated condition, when brought to the hospital. 32. In the light of the above factual matrix, the learned Tribunal in its order held that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases,: 1. Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2018(5) SCC 656 2. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, 2013 (10) SCC 946 3. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 4. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta, 2011 (10) SCC 509 5. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 on standard of proof required in a claim under Motor accidents claim, held as under: “the Tribunal has to follow holistic view of evidence and direct proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle need not be established by the claimants, and the claimants have to establish their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard proof of beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic accident.” 34. In the light of the factual matrix discussed above, which would probable the plea of the claimants that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 35. POINT No.2: The main contention of the Insurance Company in both the appeals is that the learned Tribunal erred in making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation when it was proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the material point in time i.e., at the time of accident. 36. 35. POINT No.2: The main contention of the Insurance Company in both the appeals is that the learned Tribunal erred in making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation when it was proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the material point in time i.e., at the time of accident. 36. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for Insurance Company vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle as well as owner were examined before the learned Tribunal, and their evidence would show that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company discharged its burden establishing that the driver of the lorry was not holding any licence at the time of accident and therefore, order of the learned Tribunal making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation is not valid. 37. The learned counsel for Insurance Company relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sardari and others Vs. Sushil Kumar and others, 2008 ACJ 1307 , and judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka, 1995 ACJ 358 regarding principles of burden of proof on the plea that the driver has no valid licence. 38. The learned counsel for claimants would submit that the evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector is only regarding the fact that the driver failed to produce licence at the time of his enquiry, and therefore, it does not lead the Court to hold that the driver has no licence at all to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He would further submit that owner who was examined as R.W-4, categorically deposed that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence, but nothing was elicited by the Insurance Company to probable its plea that the driver was not having valid licence and that the owner knowing fully well the same, allowed him to drive the vehicle. He would further submit that owner who was examined as R.W-4, categorically deposed that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence, but nothing was elicited by the Insurance Company to probable its plea that the driver was not having valid licence and that the owner knowing fully well the same, allowed him to drive the vehicle. He would further submit that the driver deposed that he was having valid licence, and the same was lost in the accident, and he applied for a duplicate copy; In the above circumstances, it is for the Insurance Company to summon the concerned Road Traffic Authority officials to prove that the driver was not having any licence or he did not apply for duplicate licence, and in the absence of such evidence, the Insurance Company could not contend that it discharged the burden, and therefore, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for Insurance Company have no application to the facts of the case on hand. 39. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka held that “mere mention in the criminal court’s judgment about the driver not having a licence, much less a valid driving licence is not sufficient, and that it is well established legal principle that the findings given in criminal court judgments cannot be taken aid and as seen from the pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts, the best method is to summon the driver to produce the driving licence, and also to take appropriate steps to examine him, and if the driver and the owner of the vehicle remained exparte, a duty is cast upon the Court on the application of the Insurance Company to take appropriate steps to summon the driver and examine him and if the driver is summoned, and if he has produced the driving licence, it is sufficient, and if he did not respond, nor produce the driving licence, an adverse inference can be drawn that he was not holding a valid driving licence, and it is also the duty of the Insurance Company to summon the R.T.A. officials to produce the driving licence as the R.T.A. who issued the driving licence keep record of the licence issued and renewed by it, and the Insurance Company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its defence. 40. 40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sardari’s case held that the liability of the Insurance Company would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. 41. In the light of the factual matrix in the case on hand discussed above, it would establish that as per evidence of owner of the offending vehicle i.e., driver was having valid and effective licence on the date of accident. Nothing was elicited to jettison his testimony before the learned Tribunal. The driver also categorically deposed that he was having licence and lost the same in the accident, and applied for a duplicate copy. In that view of the matter, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to summon the concerned R.T.A. officials to establish that the driver has no licence at all or if he had licence, whether he applied for a duplicate. In the absence of said evidence, the Insurance Company could not contend that it discharged its burden that the driver had no licence at the time of accident. In those circumstances, the order of learned Tribunal fastening joint liability on the Insurance Company along with the owner of the offending vehicle does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. 42. POINT No.3: The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 33 years, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Kalasi in Chatterji Godown at Visakhapatnam. Admittedly, no evidence was placed before the learned Tribunal to establish that he was working as Kalasi in Chatterji Godown at Visakhapatnam, at the material point in time. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. The learned Tribunal considering the prevailing rate of wages paid to the persons doing labour work, notionally fixed the income of deceased at Rs.100/- day, meaning thereby Rs.3,000/- per month. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal fixing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,000x12 = Rs.36,000/-. There are four dependents. Therefore, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,000x12 = Rs.36,000/-. There are four dependents. Therefore, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. Thus, the annual income of the deceased will be Rs.36,000 – 9,000 = Rs.27,000/-. 43. The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 33 years. The learned Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , applied multiplier ‘16’. The learned Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.27,000x16 = Rs.4,32,000/-, but surprisingly restricted it to Rs.3,80,000/-, on the ground that the claimants claimed only the said amount towards loss of earnings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003 (2) SCC 274 , held that the claimants are entitled to amount what is just compensation. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency, instead of Rs.3,80,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 44. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled for future prospects @ 40%, on the established income, as the deceased is below 40 years. Thus, the future prospects entitled by the claimants is Rs.4,32,000x40/100 = Rs.1,72,800/-. 45. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, love and affection and loss of estate. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 , the 1st claimant being wife of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spouse consortium, claimants No.2 and 3 being the minor children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of parental consortium, and thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. 46. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 46. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, total comes to Rs.30,000/-. 47. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,32,000 + 1,72,800 + 1,50,000 = Rs.7,54,800/-. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court. Sl.No. Description Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 4,32,000-00 2 Loss of future prospects 1,72,800-00 3 Loss of consortium 1,20,000-00 4 Loss of estate 15,000-00 5 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 7,54,800-00 48. The claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation amount of Rs.7,54,800/- as per section 171 of M.V.Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 6% p.a. only from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. Considering the date of accident, rate of interest, and in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC), this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a reasonable interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.4,50,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.7,54,800/-. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the point is answered. 50. POINT No.4: The claim petition in MVOP 198/2008 was filed by the injured/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as just compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the point is answered. 50. POINT No.4: The claim petition in MVOP 198/2008 was filed by the injured/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as just compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The claimant in his evidence deposed that he suffered fracture of right femur; fracture of both bones of right hand; fracture of right clavicle bone; fracture of scapula, and fracture of 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 ribs; and he has taken treatment for a period of 30 days; several operations were conducted and steel plates were inserted in right leg and right hand; and he spent nearly Rs.80,000/- towards treatment and hospital bills; and he was advised to take bed rest for six months on account of the above injuries; he suffered physical disability, as his right hand was paralysed; and hence, he lost earning capacity. 51. The respondents cross-examined him at length with regard to disability certificate produced by him vide Ex.A-6, on the ground that it was issued by a private doctor from Sanjeevani Hospital, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, on the ground that it was not issued by an authorised medical officer, and that it was pressed into service for wrongful gain. 52. The injured/claimant to corroborate his testimony, examined the doctor A.Gopala Krishna (P.W-2). His evidence would establish that he is a private doctor running a Nursing Home in the name and style of Sanjeevani Hospital at Visakhapatnam since 2005. He was an Orthopaedic Surgeon. On 23.12.2007 he examined the injured, who was admitted in his hospital, and he found nine injuries as mentioned in Ex.A-3 wound certificate, which contains fracture of femur, fracture of both bones of right forearm, fracture of clavicle right, fracture of right scapula and fracture of 4th to 8th ribs of right side and brachial plexus injury of right side. As per his opinion, the fracture injuries are grievous in nature, and he later, he issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate, assessing the disability as 65% on account of the paralysation of the right hand of the injured. He would depose that the injured/claimant cannot do any work with right hand. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that the Medical Board will disability certificate. The doctor categorically deposed that the right hand of the petitioner was completely paralysed. He would depose that the injured/claimant cannot do any work with right hand. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that the Medical Board will disability certificate. The doctor categorically deposed that the right hand of the petitioner was completely paralysed. Therefore, the above evidence would show that on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the injured/claimant, his right hand completely paralysed and he cannot do any work using the right hand. 53. The case of the claimant is that he was working as Kalasi in Chatterji Godown and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the injured/claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month, since no evidence was placed before the learned Tribunal to establish that he was working as Kalasi in the above organisation and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal i.e., fixing the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/-. 54. The evidence of the doctor would disclose that the right hand of the injured was completely paralysed. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the doctor, to establish that he is not competent to treat the injured, and that he was not an Orthopaedic surgeon. The fact remains on record is that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the right hand of the injured completely paralysed. Therefore, the functional disability is that he could not do any work with his right hand. He was working as coolie at the material point in time. A person doing labour work will suffer loss of earnings on account of paralysation of right hand as his work capacity will be reduced drastically, and he should live with this inconvenience throughout life. 55. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- only for permanent disability. But in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , the loss of earning capacity be assessed considering the functional disability basing on the permanent disability and functional disability which prevent him from doing the same work, he was doing prior to the date of accident, by considering his income, age and applying multiplier as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. The age of the petitioner is 25 years at the time of accident. His income was notionally fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month, and annual income Rs.3,000x12 = Rs.36,000/-The multiplier applicable for the age group of ‘21 to 25 years’ is 18. Hence, the loss of earnings is Rs.36,000x18 = Rs.6,48,000/-, and 65% of the loss of income would be Rs.6,48,000x65/100 = Rs.4,21,200/-. Instead of Rs.70,000/-. 56. The evidence would disclose that the injured/claimant was advised to take bed rest for a period of six months, for which injured/claimant is entitled to Rs.3,000x6 = Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. 57. The injured/claimant is also entitled to compensation under the head pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. The learned Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the injured/claimant has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal opined that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded for each grievous injury, but confined the amount to Rs.50,000/- only without any reason. In that view of the matter, the injured/claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000x6 = Rs.90,000/-. 58. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.82,970/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. Considering the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the said amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal. 59. Therefore, the injured/claimant in all entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,21,200 + 18,000 + 90,000 + 84,970 = Rs.6,14,170/-. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court. 60. The injured/claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount of Rs.6,14,170/- as per section 171 of M.V.Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 6% p.a. only from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. Considering the date of accident, prevailing rate of interest, and in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the injured/claimant is entitled interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 61. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Mannat Johal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the injured/claimant is entitled interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 61. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.3,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.6,14,170/-. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the point is answered. 62. POINT No.5: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No.1 to 4, the appeals vide MACMA 841/2012 and 834/2012 filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed. The appeal vide MACMA 654/2014 filed by the claimants and MACMA 754/2014 filed by the injured/claimant be allowed, by setting aside the order and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.197/2008 and 198/2008 respectively, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. Accordingly, the point is answered. 63. In the result, the appeals in MACMA 841/2012 and 834/2012 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. 64. The appeal vide MACMA 654/2014 is allowed, by modifying the order and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.197/2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, in respect of quantum of compensation, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs, Fifty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.4,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs. 65. There shall be no order as to costs. 65. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs, Fifty Four Thousand and Eight Hundred only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. 66. On such deposit, the 1st Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,54,800/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Fifty Four Thousand and Eight Hundred only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 67. The Appellants No.2 and 3/claimants No.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 68. The 4th Appellant/4th claimant being the mother of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 69. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. 70. The appeal vide MACMA 754/2014 is allowed, by modifying the order and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.198/2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, in respect of quantum of compensation, holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,14,170/- (Rupees Six Lakhs, Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,13,970/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs. 71. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,14,170/- (Rupees Six Lakhs, Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. 72. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,14,170/- (Rupees Six Lakhs, Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy only), and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 73. 72. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,14,170/- (Rupees Six Lakhs, Fourteen Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy only), and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 73. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.