JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introductory:- The respondent-APSRTC in M.V.O.P.No.107 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge Tirupati [for short “learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 08.01.2014 passed therein, filed the present appeal. 2. Respondents herein are the claimants and a claim was made for awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Somasekhar Reddy [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’], husband of the 1 st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3, son of respondent No.4. Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded by the learned MACT. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order. Factual sequences that pleaded by the claimants:- 4. [i] Deceased, one Soma Sekhar Reddy was aged about ‘25’, working as CNC Machine Operator in Anjusree Enterprises, Banglore, while travelling on his motor cycle along with his wife on 13.01.2011 for purchasing cloths for celebrating Sankranthi festival, one APSRTC Metro bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6644 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle and the deceased suffered instantaneous death and his wife suffered injuries. [ii] A case in Cr.No.6 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC was registered and subsequently the driver was charge sheeted. [iii] The deceased is the sole bread winner for the family earning Rs.5,873/- per month. The driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident and the vehicle being operated and managed by the respondent-APSRTC/appellant, the respondent is liable to pay compensation. 5. The respondent-APSRTC denied all the allegations and put the claimants to strict proof. 6. Learned MACT upon considering the evidence covered by PWs.1 to 3, Exs.A1 to Ex.A11 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 and the evidence of RW.1 as well as Ex.B1, believed the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,870/-, deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenditure. Applying multiplier ‘12’, awarded compensation under various heads, as follows:- 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,50,940/- 2. Towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner Rs.14,060/- 3. Towards loss of love and affection towards petitioners 2 and 3 Rs.20,000/- 4. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/- 5. Accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,870/-, deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenditure. Applying multiplier ‘12’, awarded compensation under various heads, as follows:- 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,50,940/- 2. Towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner Rs.14,060/- 3. Towards loss of love and affection towards petitioners 2 and 3 Rs.20,000/- 4. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/- 5. Towards funeral expenses Rs.5000/- Total Rs.10,00,000/- Arguments in the Appeal:- For the appellant:- 7. (1) [i] Learned MACT erred in awarding the total compensation claimed at Rs.10,00,000/- [ii] Learned MACT erred in ignoring the evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. [iii] Learned MACT failed to take note the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. [iv] There is no basis for accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.5870/- by the learned MACT. [v] Compensation awarded is excessive. For the claimants:- (2) [i] Learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the income of the deceased. [ii] Multiplier ‘12’ as adopted by the learned MACT is incorrect. [iii] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what is claimed and that there is no bar to award more compensation that what is claimed as per the settled law. 8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 9. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident, dated 13.01.2011 has occurred owning to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver? And whether the negligence can be apportioned among the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle? 2) Whether the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any modification either by way of reduction or enhancement? If so, to what extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1:- Precedential Guidance:- 10. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 11. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 , which reads as under: “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” 12. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors. , [2009 Supreme (AP) 136= 2010(2) ALD 403 = 2009(3) ALT 260 ] , the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows: “5. Point: Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer. 6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may". 7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub-rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself.” Evidence and Analysis:- 13. [i] One Bhuvaneswari, wife of the deceased/1 st claimant is examined as PW.1. She is an eye witness to the accident and she has deposed in categorical terms as to occurrence of the accident. [ii] During the cross examination, an attempt was made to show that the deceased was not having driving licence. PW.1 asserted that she was a pillion rider. It was suggested to her that the bus was stopped on the left side of the road and the deceased himself, dashed the bus in a rash and negligent manner. [iii] RW.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. He denied the negligence and stated that the deceased came in a zig-zag manner and hit the bus in the middle of the front side. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. [iv] Appellant relied on Ex.B1-photographs to show that the bus was on the left side of the road. Even according to the photographs the dead body was lying on the side of the road. [v] What happened to the criminal case and what is the judgment in criminal case is not known. [vi] As per charge sheet, negligence is attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. As per the inquest, the offending vehicle and the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling dashed against the each other and it is a case of head-on collision. [vii] PW.1- wife of the deceased is some extent of interested witness, equally RW.1 - driver of the offending vehicle is also the interested witness. As per the inquest, the offending vehicle and the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling dashed against the each other and it is a case of head-on collision. [vii] PW.1- wife of the deceased is some extent of interested witness, equally RW.1 - driver of the offending vehicle is also the interested witness. Recitals in the complaint annexed to Ex.A1-FIR, indicating the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. [viii] Photographs/Ex.B1 are not confronted to PW.1, eye witness, nor any eye witness is examined. 14. With the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-charge Sheet, the burden to prove the negligence has been discharged by the claimants. The onus then shifted to the respondent to rebut the evidence, placed by the claimants, which respondent failed to discharge. Even according to RW.1, Ex.B1- photographs were obtained by his department. The Photographs-Ex.B1 without any corroborating evidence, at least confronting the same to the PW.1, cannot be of any use. Solitary oral evidence of RW.1 found not sufficient to accept the case of appellant-APSRTC, particularly when the same is seen in the light of the precedential guidance as to complying probability theory in respect of appreciating the negligence and that there is no need for claimants to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Upon analysis of the evidence on record, the contention of the appellant-APSRTC that the negligence of the deceased is also cause for the accident found not acceptable. Further, upon application of the probability theory, particularly in the light of the crime record and in the light of the statutory and precedential guidance referred to above vide Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi’s case, India Assurance Company Ltd.’s case [cited 2 & 3 supra] this Court concurs with the findings of the learned MACT, on the point regarding the occurrence of accident as attributable to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: Precedential guidance as to quantum of Compensation: a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 16. [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: Precedential guidance as to quantum of Compensation: a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 16. [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. [ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. This shall be with reference to the table provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 17. [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others , [ 2017(16) SCC 680 ] case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. [ii] The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 18. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. d) Just Compensation: 19. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.” Factual position and Analysis of Evidence :- 20. [i] As per the evidence of PW.1, the deceased was an employee. It was suggested that the deceased was in private employment and that Rs.1501/- is fixed as pension. It was also suggested to her that income at Rs.6000/- claimed by her is incorrect. [ii] PW.2-S.R.Paramesh, is Manager of the Company where the deceased was working as Machine operator and he has stated the salary of the deceased is Rs.5870/- with reference to Ex.A7/Salary Certificate issued by the Firm. He has also referred the Attendance register and the Wages Register of the deceased covered by Ex.X2 and X3. [iii] PW.3, who working in the concerned way where the deceased worked, stated that the deceased was getting Rs.5873/- per month. The evidence of PW.2 and 3 coupled with documentary evidence are found sufficient to accept that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.5873/-. No error can be found in the findings of the learned MACT as to adopting income, at Rs.5870/-. Learned MACT had adopted multiplier ‘12’ while accepting the age of the deceased at ‘25’. [iv] As per the Post Mortem Certificate and inquest report, the age of the deceased is ‘25’. Adoption of multiplier ‘12’ is found incorrect and multiplier ‘18’ is to be adopted. The deduction of 1/4 th towards personal expenditure taking note of 4 dependents found fit for confirmation. Towards future prospects, 30% of the income can be added. [v] Then income of the deceased is [5870x 12] Rs.70,440/- p.a. On adding 30% future prospects comes to Rs.91,572/-p.a. 1/4 th of the same, if deducted towards personal expenditure, the contribution of deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.68,679/-. Therefore, multiplicand is Rs. 68,679/- and Multiplier is ‘18’. Towards future prospects, 30% of the income can be added. [v] Then income of the deceased is [5870x 12] Rs.70,440/- p.a. On adding 30% future prospects comes to Rs.91,572/-p.a. 1/4 th of the same, if deducted towards personal expenditure, the contribution of deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.68,679/-. Therefore, multiplicand is Rs. 68,679/- and Multiplier is ‘18’. Then the entitlement of the claimants under the head of loss of dependency is [68679x 18] Rs.12,36,222/-. [vi] Further the compensation awarded under funeral expenditure and loss of estate etc., also require modification, in tune with the guidelines under Sara Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases [cited supra]. 21. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.9,50,940/- Rs. 12,36,222/- 2. Loss of Consortium Rs.14,060/- [+] Rs.20,000/- [Loss of Love and Affection ] Rs.1,60,000/- [@Rs.40,000/- each X 4] 3. Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Total compensation awarded Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.14,26,222 /- 22. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others , [2023 SCC Online AP 1725] in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.” 23. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others , [ (2021) 16 SCC 467 ] . 24. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others case (8 supra), in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. 25. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. , 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. , 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “ 33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ] at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 26. For the aforestated reasons and the precedential guidance referred above, it is found that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 14,26,222/- and the impugned Award and Decree dated 08.01.2014 required to be modified to that extent. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. Point No.3: 27. In the result, appeal is dismissed. [i] However, the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned decree and order dated 08.01.2014 is modified and enhanced to Rs.14,26,222/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Apportionment: [ii] The apportionment of compensation among the claimants 1 to 4 shall be in proportion to the ratio adopted by the learned MACT. Apportionment: [ii] The apportionment of compensation among the claimants 1 to 4 shall be in proportion to the ratio adopted by the learned MACT. [iii] The claimants/petitioners shall pay the Court fee in respect of enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. [iii] The claimants/petitioners are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit. [iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances. [v] Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two (02) months. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.