JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the Insurance Company arising out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.15 of 2018 dated 24.08.2021. 2. Respondent No.1 herein - petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the sons and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the married daughters of late Mohammed Allauddin. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of the deceased – Mohammad Allauddin, who died on 08.11.2017 in a road traffic accident, against the driver – respondent No.7 herein – respondent No.1, owner - respondent No.8 herein – respondent No.2, Insurance Company – appellant herein - respondent No.3 and the Managing Director TSRTC – respondent No.9 herein - respondent No.4. 4. On 07.11.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., Mohammad Allauddin was going towards new bus stand by walk, the bus bearing No. TS-15-UC-1078 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind and hit him, as a result Mohammad Allauddin fell down and received severe multiple injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, from there to Balaji Hospital, later referred to Citizen Hospital and on 08.11.2017 at 1.00 p.m., he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident, was hale and healthy, was a retired SI of Police and drawing monthly pension of Rs.35,000/-, also earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing nursery business and in all the deceased used to earn Rs.50,000/- per month, contribute the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the claimants have suffered mental pain, agony and lost their love and affection. On the complaint, PS Sangareddy has registered a case in Crime No.247 of 2017 against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and prayed to allow the O.P. 5. Driver and owner (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. On the complaint, PS Sangareddy has registered a case in Crime No.247 of 2017 against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and prayed to allow the O.P. 5. Driver and owner (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. Appellant herein - respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that at the time of the accident policy number mentioned by the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein) in the claim petition does not tally with the series of the policy issued by them and for want of correct policy particulars they denied the allegation that the vehicle was insured with them. Driver was not having subsisting licence to drive the bus at the time of accident and they are not aware of criminal case proceedings launched against the driver. 7. TSRTC Musheerabad, Hyderabad (respondent No.9 herein) filed counter, denied the age, occupation, health condition and income of the deceased and also denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. Respondent No.2 (respondent No.8 herein) is the registered owner of the bus and the same is validly insured with the appellant herein – respondent No.3 and they do not have any liability to pay compensation, in view of the fact that they are only custodian of the bus and the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6 – petitioners is excessive and exorbitant, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what amount and from whom? 3) To what result? 9. Respondent No.2-peitioner No.2 was examined as PW1, also examined PW2-Mohammad Abdul Nayeem and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced by the insurance company, Ex.B1-policy was marked. 10. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 has partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.20,65,462/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 - petitioners along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition [29.12.2017] till the date of realization. 11. 10. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 has partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.20,65,462/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 - petitioners along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition [29.12.2017] till the date of realization. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that major sons of the deceased i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were employed, respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are married daughters of the deceased and they are not dependants, though they could claim as legal heirs and they cannot claim under the head of loss of dependency. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 - petitioner No.4 could only be treated as dependents, contribution towards personal expenses has to be deducted to 1/3 rd and not 1/4 th. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was retired employee and drawing pension, he was not entitled for future prospects. PW1 has admitted that he is earning Rs.44,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is receiving family pension which has to be deducted from the compensation and prayed to set aside the award. 12. Appellants’ counsel submitted that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present appeal since the Insurance company has challenged the quantum and other heads awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 – petitioners submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 – petitioners have filed their written submissions. The decisions cited by the counsels will be referred in the succeeding paragraphs. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused the record. 16. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, requires interference of this Court or not? 17. Admittedly, by the date of filing the O.P. respondent Nos.5 and 6 – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 were already married, respondent Nos. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused the record. 16. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, requires interference of this Court or not? 17. Admittedly, by the date of filing the O.P. respondent Nos.5 and 6 – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 were already married, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were shown as private employees, respondent No.4 - petitioner No.4 is shown as student and respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is shown as housewife. 18. As per the claim petition the deceased was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.35,000/- and was also earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing nursery business, in total he used to earn Rs.50,000/- per month. The evidence of PW1 is also the same to that effect. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was earning Rs.44,000/- per month. The earning of PW1 is more than the pension drawn by the deceased. 19. The only point raised by the appellant in the appeal is that the married daughters are entitled for compensation for the amount as prescribed under Section 140 of the Act and they are not entitled for loss of estate. 20.1 In Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another , (2019) 17 SCC 465 (three Judge Bench) the Supreme Court observed that the MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, they are not entitled to claim another amount at the rate of 15% by way of future prospects. The above said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and the same is not applicable. 20.2 In Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another , (2007) 10 SCC 643 the Supreme Court held that the legal representative namely his daughter was entitled to the said compensation under no fault liability in terms of Section 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. 20.3 In Krishna and Others vs. Tek Chand and Others , SLP (C) No. 5044 of 2019 of Supreme Court of India dated 05.02.2024 the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a duplication in a payments or a windfall owning to a misfortune. 21. 20.3 In Krishna and Others vs. Tek Chand and Others , SLP (C) No. 5044 of 2019 of Supreme Court of India dated 05.02.2024 the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a duplication in a payments or a windfall owning to a misfortune. 21. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are private employees as such they are also depending on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4 th and the compensation awarded is appropriate. 22.1 In MAGMA General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 Supreme Court observed that parental consortium is to be granted to the child upon the premature death of the parent. 22.2 In Surekha vs. Santosh , (2021) 16 SCC 467 (three Judge Bench) the Supreme Court observed that the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the effected person or the claimants. 22.3 In National Insurance Company vs. Birender and Others , (2020) 11 SCC 356 the Supreme Court held that even major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased or not in accordance with law. 23. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under: S. No Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Income (As per Ex.A8) per month Rs.21,422/- 2. Annual income Rs.2,57,064/- (21,422 x 12) 3. 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,92,798/- 2,57,064 – [(2,57,064 x (1/4) = 64,266)] 4. Add 15% Future Prospects Rs.2,21,718/- 1,92,798 + [(1,92,798 x 15%) =28,920] 5. Multiplier Rs.19,95,462/- (2,21,718 x 9) 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 8. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.20,65,462/- Further, the Tribunal apportioned the awarded amount and awarded Rs.15,65,462/- to the respondent No.1 - claimant No.1 and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to each respondent Nos.2 to 6-claimant Nos.2 to 6. 24. In Deep Shikha and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1090 the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, as under: “13. 24. In Deep Shikha and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1090 the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, as under: “13. Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased. 14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.” 25. In Seema Rani and Others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283 the Supreme Court has awarded loss of consortium to the married daughter. Hence respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the married daughters of the deceased are also entitled for loss of consortium. 26. The earning of PW1 is double the amount of the deceased pension i.e., Rs.21,442/- and he is earning sufficiently. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 with regard to the earning capacity of respondent No.3 herein – petitioner No.3. In the absence of any material it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 is not depending on the income of the deceased. PW1 (respondent No.2 herein – petitioner No.2) is aged about 30 years by the date of filing the claim petition, as he is earning double the amount of the deceased and he cannot termed as a dependent of his father. 27. PW1 (respondent No.2 herein – petitioner No.2) is aged about 30 years by the date of filing the claim petition, as he is earning double the amount of the deceased and he cannot termed as a dependent of his father. 27. Respondent No.1 is the wife. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the sons, who are depending on the income of the deceased. Hence as per Smt. Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 where the number of dependents are two to three the personal and living expenses of the deceased be taken at 1/3rd. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 – petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are entitled at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each as per the decision in Deep Shikha’s case 7 and they are also entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The calculation arrived is as under: S. No. Name of the Head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income (As per Ex.A8) per month Rs.21,422/- 2. Deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.14,282/- 21,422 – [21,422 x (1/3) = 7140] 3. Annual income Rs.1,71,384/- (14,282 x 12) 4. Add 15% future prospects (as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) Rs.1,97,092/- 1,71,384 + ((1,71,384 x 15%) = 25,708/-) 5. Multiplier ‘9’ Rs.17,73,828/- (1,97,092 x 9) 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 8. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each Rs.2,40,000/- (40,000 x 6) Total Rs.20,43,828/- 28. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per decision of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra’s case. 29. In the result, MACMA.No.5 of 2022 is allowed as under: a) The impugned award dated 24.08.2021 passed in MVOP.No.15 of 2018 stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.20,65,462/- is modified to Rs.20,43,828/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) Respondent No.1 - claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.14,63,828/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. d) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. c) Respondent No.1 - claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.14,63,828/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. d) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) Respondent No.4 - claimant No.4 is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. f) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 - claimant Nos.5 and 6 are entitled to Rs.90,000/- (50,000 + 40,000) each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing any security. g) The appellant - respondent No.3 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs.