JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Order, dated 17.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No. 1559 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation laid under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) with regard to the death of Potu Tripura Sundara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.06.2012 at 10:00 A.M. awarded a sum of Rs.9,59,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and apportioned Rs.3,59,500/- to first claimant/wife and Rs.2,00,000/- to the second claimant/minor daughter, Rs.1,00,000/- to the third claimant/minor son and Rs.1,50,000/- each to the fourth and fifth claimants, being parents of the deceased, respectively. To award more compensation than prayed, the Tribunal relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tatha Sreevani and Others v. D. Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2014 ACJ 516 . 2. Appellant herein is no other than the second respondent/insurer in the aforesaid M.V.O.P. No. 1559 of 2012. 3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner is the wife, second and third petitioners are the minor children and fourth and fifth petitioners are the aged parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 35 years and is driver-cum-owner of a Lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TV 1275 and 10 days prior to 12.06.2012, he went to Guwahati on his Lorry and while returning to Hyderabad on 12.06.2012 at about 10:00 A.M. when he reached near Margram Village of Bhirbhun District, West Bengal State, another Lorry bearing registration No. AP 07 TC 3535 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry of the deceased. As a result the deceased died on the spot. Immediately his body was shifted to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Rampurhut, where the doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. As a result the deceased died on the spot. Immediately his body was shifted to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Rampurhut, where the doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The Magram Police of Bhirbhun district of West Bengal registered the accident as a case in Crime No. 80 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the first respondent. First respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle is squarely liable for the rash and negligent act of his driver. The second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim. 5. First respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte. 6. Second respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed written statement resisting the prayer of the petitioners and contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle. They have to prove the manner of the accident and their dependency. They have to prove every allegation made in the claim. The deceased was going in his Lorry with high speed and was negligent in causing the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Hence, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No. AP 07 TC 3535? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal, first petitioner/wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. Petitioners got examined the eye-witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting second respondent. 9. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and against the contesting second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.9,59,500/- as compensation. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting second respondent. 9. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and against the contesting second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.9,59,500/- as compensation. The Tribunal arrived at the multiplicand as that of Rs.4,50,000/- and granted Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to all the petitioners towards of loss of love and affection and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs.9,59,500/-. 10. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the unsuccessful second respondent/insurer filed the present Appeal. 11. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is: Whether the Order of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 1559 of 2012, dated 17.06.2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in awarding a sum of Rs.9,59,500/- against the original claim of Rs.5,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 12. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, would contend that the claim laid before the Tribunal was under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The Tribunal arrived at the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- p.a., after deducting 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as laid down under Section 163-A of the MV Act, towards his personal and living expenses, arrived at the multiplicand. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner towards loss of love and affection which is not in accordance with law. With the above submissions, she would contend that the compensation needs to be reduced drastically. 13. Originally, one Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel, representing Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, advanced the arguments relying on the Notification of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 22.05.2018, relating to II Schedule vide Section 163-A of the MV Act. In this regard, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the said notification has no retrospective effect. In this regard, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the said notification has no retrospective effect. While so, when the matter was coming for judgment on 05.03.2024, this Court has sought for certain clarification with regard to the fact that though the claim was laid under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the Tribunal framed an issue with regard to the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle and though it answered the same in a positive manner but decided to award compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. This Court has sought for further clarification as to the applicability of the notification of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 22.05.2018, relating to II Schedule vide Section 163-A of the MV. Act because it cannot be applicable to the accident which was occurred on 12.06.2012. Later, both sides made necessary clarifications in this regard. 14. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, in this regard would submit that it is a case where the claimants laid the claim before the Tribunal alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal settled the issue to that effect and answered the same. It must have been a typographical error in making a mention about 163-A of the MV Act. It was a bona fide mistake happened before the Tribunal which could not be noticed by learned counsel for the claimants before the Tribunal as such it is a fit case to consider the same as that of claim filed under Section 166 of the MV Act in stead of Section 163-A of the MV Act. The notification, which the claimants relied on, previously has no relevancy. He would further submit that the minimum salary of a driver during the period of accident was around Rs.7,000/- p.m. and if that is taken into consideration, the compensation would be around Rs.9,45,000/- apart from the non pecuniary damages. His another contention is that if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- p.m. at the time of accident and if it is multiplied with 12 and also with appropriate multiplier 15, it would come to Rs.12,60,000/- and if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs.9,45,000/-. His another contention is that if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- p.m. at the time of accident and if it is multiplied with 12 and also with appropriate multiplier 15, it would come to Rs.12,60,000/- and if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs.9,45,000/-. Apart from this, there are no pecuniary damages as such there is no need to disturb the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, during the course of reply, would contend that as the claim was laid under Section 163-A of the MV Act, now it cannot be treated as claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. Claimants categorically pleaded in claim petition that the deceased used to earn Rs.40,000/- p.a. and it was testified by PW-1. When that being so, the contention of the respondents counsel that the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.7,000/- p.m. deserves no merit. She would further submit that the very act of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the petitioners towards loss of love and affection needs to be disturbed as such compensation needs to be reduced. In support of her contention, she would rely on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dhabbai Kanji Gandhvi and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 513 . 16. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the claim laid before the Tribunal was under Section 166 of the MV Act or 163-A of the MV Act. Literally, the claim before the Tribunal was laid under Section 163-A of the MV Act but the pleadings were in such a fashion that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the pleadings and the written statement filed by the second respondent/insurer, an issue was framed as to whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondent/insurer. Considering the pleadings and the written statement filed by the second respondent/insurer, an issue was framed as to whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondent/insurer. There is no dispute that for the accident in question, an FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet concluding that the accident was occurred due to his rash and negligent act. So, obviously, it appears that Section 163-A was mentioned in the claim laid before the Tribunal due to inadvertence. To decide the nature of claim i.e., as to whether it was filed under Section 166 or 163-A of the MV Act, pleadings have to be interpreted properly. So, if the pleadings are looked into, it means that the claim was laid alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle. Even the Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 considering the claim as one under Section 166 of the MV Act. So, when the Tribunal decided the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, compensation needs to be decided properly in accordance with law. 17. What the Tribunal did is that it considered the income of the deceased as that of Rs.40,000/- p.a. and deducted 1/4th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses. It is to be noticed that if the claim is considered as filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1/3rd of the amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first petitioner/wife, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The act of the Tribunal in awarding such amounts when issue No. 1 was answered positively in favour of the petitioners is not at all proper. A look into the order reveals that the Tribunal did not bother to look into the fact that the claim was laid with essential ingredients of Section 166 of the MV Act, but with wrong provision of law mistakenly. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 15 considering the appropriate age of the deceased. A look into the order reveals that the Tribunal did not bother to look into the fact that the claim was laid with essential ingredients of Section 166 of the MV Act, but with wrong provision of law mistakenly. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 15 considering the appropriate age of the deceased. So, obviously, the intention of the Tribunal in answering Issue No. 1 was by treating the case as one filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. 18. Now, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the claim laid by the Tribunal cannot be considered as under Section 166 of the MV Act in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (supra) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra). This Court has gone through the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (supra), what was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court was that the claim under Sections 163-A and 166 of the MV Act cannot be pursued simultaneously. It was held that when a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act was decided, claimants cannot pursue the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. Similar is the proposition in another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra). 19. Coming to the case on hand, it is not a case where the claimants wanted to pursue the remedies both under Sections 166 and 163-A of the MV Act. There was only one single claim which was filed with essential ingredients of Section 166 of the MV Act by quoting the wrong provision of law as 163-A of the MV Act. Claimants adduced necessary evidence to prove the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle. Under the facts and circumstances, the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (supra) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited (3rd supra) are not helpful to contend that the claim of the claimants cannot be treated as filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. 20. Under the facts and circumstances, the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (supra) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited (3rd supra) are not helpful to contend that the claim of the claimants cannot be treated as filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. 20. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, would rely on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kore Laxmi and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2005 ACJ 543 which has nothing to do to contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. Obviously, it was a case where the driver met with rash and negligent act while driving the Lorry and a claim was laid by the legal heirs under Section 163-A of the MV Act. It has nothing to do with the present facts and circumstances. 21. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the claim can be treated as under Section 166 of the MV Act appears to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 22. Now the pleadings of the claimants reveal that the deceased was driving his vehicle as a driver and he was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a. It was also testified by PW-1, who was no other than wife of the deceased. The Tribunal believed the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.40,000/- p.a. and considering the age of the deceased, applied multiplier 15 and arrived at the income as Rs.6,00,000/-. As the deceased has 5 dependents, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses and arrived at the multiplicand as that of Rs.4,50,000/- rightly. Insofar as arriving at the multiplicand as Rs.4,50,000/- is concerned, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 23. As this Court already pointed out a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate cannot be sustained as the claim has to be treated as one under Section 166 of the MV Act. 23. As this Court already pointed out a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate cannot be sustained as the claim has to be treated as one under Section 166 of the MV Act. It is to be noticed that the contention of learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is that, in the year 2012, the salary of a driver can be treated as Rs.7,000/- p.m. and if it is considered, it has to be calculated as Rs.7,000/- x 12 and by applying the same with appropriate multiplier 15, it can be arrived at Rs.12,60,000/- and even if a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- is deducted towards personal and living expenses, the multiplicand would be Rs.9,45,000/- as such the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal needs no interference. 24. It is very difficult accept such a contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. There was pleading and evidence that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.40,000/- p.a. When such is the situation, his contention that the income of the deceased can be treated as Rs.7,000/- p.m. deserves no merit. The obvious contention of learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is such that there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation. This Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurer to consider the income of the deceased as that of Rs.7,000/- p.m. 25. A look at the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Puttamma and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, (2013) 15 SCC 45 and observed that the II Schedule of the MV Act enacted in 1994 has become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed scenario including cost of living, current rate of inflation and increased life expectancy. The Tribunal further looked into the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 and M. Mansoor and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2013) 12 SCALE 324 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal further looked into the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 and M. Mansoor and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2013) 12 SCALE 324 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner towards loss of love and affection. It is no doubt true that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and others (supra), dealing with the facts and circumstances awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the children towards loss of love and affection. In M. Mansoor and others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- each to the parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son. 26. It is to be noticed that the matter is no longer res integra with regard to awarding compensation under the conventional heads in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . As the Appeal is pending, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), is squarely applicable to the case on hand. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the wife and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses can be awarded to the respondents/claimants. Apart from this, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 held that minor children are also entitled to parental consortium and the compensation to be awarded under parental consortium should be on par with the quantum of consortium specified in Pranay Sethi (supra). So, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), as well as the decision in M. Mansoor and others (supra), the spousal consortium to be awarded to the first respondent/wife is Rs.40,000/- and parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the second and third petitioners/minor children is to be awarded. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is as follows: S. No. Name of the Head Amount 1. Loss of future earnings (Multiplicand) Rs. 4,50,000/- 2. Consortium to the wife Rs. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is as follows: S. No. Name of the Head Amount 1. Loss of future earnings (Multiplicand) Rs. 4,50,000/- 2. Consortium to the wife Rs. 40,000/- 3. Consortium to the minor children [2 x 40,000] Rs. 80,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 6,00,000/- 27. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Under the circumstances the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs interference. 28. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 9,59,500/- to that of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. From out of the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- awarded by this Court, the first petitioner/wife is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- second petitioner/minor daughter is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- third petitioner/minor son is entitled to Rs.1,00,000 and fourth and fifth petitioners/parents are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each towards compensation. 29. The appellant/insurer shall deposit the rest of the compensation amount, if any, within one month from this date and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in lump sum. 30. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.