JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”) questioning the order and decree dated 27.10.2009 as to liability and quantification of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents herein. 2. Respondents herein are the parents of one M. Lakshma Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in the motor vehicle/road traffic accident, due to the involvement of bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 9162 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) owned by the appellant herein. Claim was made for Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned MACT was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.3,08,000/-. 3. As per claimants, on 11.12.2008 at about 7:00 A.M., when the deceased was travelling on TVS Moped between Hussain Nagar and Munagudu, the offending vehicle came from Byyaram Village side and dashed the TVS Moped causing the ghastly accident due to which the deceased suffered instantaneous death. The deceased was unmarried, hale and healthy, aged about 22 years, earning Rs.200/- per day and he was the sole breadwinner for the family. His death exposed the claimants to untold misery. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 4. Claim was resisted by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C putting the claimants to strictly prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle while attributing negligence to the deceased. 5. Learned MACT held the issue relating to the negligence in favour of the claimants by relying on the evidence of eye witness, PW.2 and FIR, Charge sheet, MVI report, inquest report and rough sketch of the scene of offence etc. and disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Further, the learned MACT, taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Accepted the annual income at Rs.36,000/- and deducted 50% towards the personal expenditure, taken Rs.18,000/- per annum as his contribution for the family, adopted the multiplier applicable to the mother of the deceased at "16? and accepted the loss of income or dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. Additionally, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenditure. and accepted the loss of income or dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. Additionally, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenditure. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Compensation towards loss of income or dependency Rs.2,88,000/- Compensation towards loss to the estate Rs.15,000/- Compensation towards transportation charges of the dead body to the house and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3,08,000/- 7. Extensive arguments submitted by both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C.: 8(i). Learned MACT failed to note that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. (ii). Learned MACT erred in taking income at Rs.3000/- per month without sufficient evidence. (iii). Quantification of compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- is baseless. (iv). Awarding of interest at 7% is excessive. For the claimants: 9(i). Evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to believe the negligence. Reasoning of the learned MACT as to negligence is justified. The claim was laid under Section 163-A, therefore, the involvement of the motor vehicle in the accident is sufficient to accept the entitlement of claimants and liability of the tortfeasor and owner of the offending vehicle. (ii). Learned MACT ought to have adopted the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased but not the mother of the deceased. (iii). Learned MACT ought to have taken the income at Rs.200/- per day as claimed and ought to have added future prospects to the income adopted. 10. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 11.12.2008 has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether there was contributory negligence of the deceased? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation and if so, whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.3,08,000/- is just and reasonable or requires any interference either by way of reduction or enhancement? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 11. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. FIR, charge sheet and other crime records indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver. 12. R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, did not dispute about the involvement of the vehicle or he being a driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Point No.1: 11. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. FIR, charge sheet and other crime records indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver. 12. R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, did not dispute about the involvement of the vehicle or he being a driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. 13. As per the Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the claim is laid, involvement of the vehicle is enough. As per A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, Rule 476(7) for entertaining a claim for compensation, the crime record like FIR, inquest etc., are sufficient. 14. Further, there is no any convincing evidence to consider the contributory negligence, if any, of the deceased. In this factual, legal and logical scenario, the objection of the appellant on the findings of the learned MACT as to negligence found not tenable. Hence point framed is answered against the appellant/ A.P.S.R.T.C. and in favour of the claimants as to negligence. Point No.2: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 15(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. 15(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 as per 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. This shall be as per 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: 16(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. 16(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. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 17. 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: 18. 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. 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. 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. 19. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimants require examination. e) Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 20(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. 19. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimants require examination. e) Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 20(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. 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. 20(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (5 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 ] 20(iii). In Surekha and Others vs . Santosh and Others (6 supra) case, 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. f) Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 21. 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. 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 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.” Analysis of Evidence: 22. P.W.1 stated that the deceased was aged "20? years and he was working as an agricultural coolie. There cannot be any documentary evidence as to the occupation as a labourer. The date of accident is 11.12.2008. 23. Upon considering the socio-economic circumstances of the year 2008, price index and minimum wages etc., in terms of the National Floor Level Minimum Wage revised with effect from 01.09.2007, the daily wage acceptable was fixed at around Rs.80/- and the all-India average daily wage for unskilled labour was around Rs.60/- to Rs.70/-. 24. Upon adding of 30-40% towards future prospects, the income of the deceased can be accepted at Rs.100/- which the learned MACT has rightly adopted. Deduction of 50% towards the personal expenditure is also proper. 25. With regard to adoption of multiplier, learned MACT ought to have adopted the multiplier "18? applicable to the age of the deceased instead of adopting the multiplier "16? applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased as righty argued. 26. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reason and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Sl. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of income or dependency Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 18) 2. Loss of consortium -Nil- ( Rs.80,000/- Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: Rs.40,000/-x2) 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Transportation charges and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.3,08,000/- Rs.4,34,000/- 27. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimants, concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- and the impugned order and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2008 require modification accordingly. Point No.3: 28. In the result , the appeal is dismissed. However, (i). Point No.3: 28. In the result , the appeal is dismissed. However, (i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.3,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum under the impugned decree and order dated 27.10.2009 is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii). Claimant No.1/mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,84,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. (iii). Claimant No.2/father of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest. (iv). The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (v). Time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months. (vi). Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (vii). There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.