JUDGMENT : Challa Gunaranjan, J. Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, “the Act”), by appellants/respondents 2 and 4/ Insurer, aggrieved by the order, dated 23.04.2021, passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District (“the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Son and two minor daughters of deceased are claimants. They laid claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest on account of death of deceased. While the deceased along with her relatives in order to attend marriage of one of their nearby were proceeding on DCM van bearing registration No.AP 24 TB 5247 from Chevuru village to Malakonda temple, upon reaching Cherlopalli village, the Van came to be dashed by a private bus bearing registration No.AP 27 TT 3930, which was proceeding in opposite direction. In view of aforesaid accident, the deceased and also other inmates of DCM Van sustained severe injuries and many of them succumbed on the spot. The incident was reported to police, who registered Crime No.144 of 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and Section 134(a) and 134(b) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , against both the drivers of DCM Van as well as Sri Krishna Travels bus, and later, they were charge-sheeted for the said offences. Deceased claimed to be agricultural coolie, aged 30 years, and earning about Rs.375/- per day, hence, compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest was claimed. (b) Owner of DCM Van, drivers of both DCM Van and bus, who were arrayed as respondents 3, 5 and 6 remained ex parte. 1 st respondent, owner of Sri Krishna Travels Bus, filed written statement. Both DCM Van and also bus were insured with same Insurer, who were arrayed as respondents 2 and 4, therefore, they as well filed their respective written statements. (c) The respondents essentially denied the manner in which the accident occurred and that drivers of respective vehicles were negligent in causing the accident. They have also denied the age, avocation, income of deceased. (c) The respondents essentially denied the manner in which the accident occurred and that drivers of respective vehicles were negligent in causing the accident. They have also denied the age, avocation, income of deceased. (d) 4 th respondent Insurer of DCM Van also raised yet another objection that all the inmates of DCM Van were required to be considered as unauthorised passengers, inasmuch as the owner of DCM Van very much had the knowledge and he himself had hired DCM Van for carrying those passengers, albeit being goods transport vehicle, which is in clear violation of conditions of policy. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the death of the deceased Nakkala Subhashini occurred on 17.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Sri Krishna Travels bus bearing No.AP 27 TT 3930 or was there any negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM van bearing No.AP 24 TB 5247? 2. Whether the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 27 TT 3930 is having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., driver of the bus bearing No.AP 27 TT 3930? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 5. To what relief? (d) In support of the case of the claimants, husband of deceased and co-passenger of DCM Van were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of respondents, owner of the bus got examined as RW.1. Officer of the Insurer got examined as RW.2 and concerned Officers from the Transport Department were examined as RW.3 and RW.4, and got marked Exs.B1 to B5, and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. (e) After detailed consideration of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that both drivers of DCM van as well as the bus were equally responsible and negligent in causing the accident and therefore, the deceased had died on account of such clear negligence. The Tribunal also found that because of magnitude of the accident, nearly 15 persons died on the spot and many others got injured, which was possible only on account of sheer rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal also found that because of magnitude of the accident, nearly 15 persons died on the spot and many others got injured, which was possible only on account of sheer rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. With respect to the stand of Insurer that driver of bus was not holding valid driving licence, and also that the inmates of the DCM Van were unauthorised passengers on account of the owner himself engaging the goods vehicle for hire to transport passengers, the Tribunal concluded that drivers of both vehicles did not possess effective and valid driving licenses, however, considering the evidence on record did not establish that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, by applying the principle of ‘pay and recover’, the Insurer was directed to pay the compensation and later to recover the same from the owners of respective offending vehicles. The Tribunal, therefore, has determined the compensation as under: S. No. Heads Calculation 1. Income of the deceased per month Rs.4,000.00 2. Income of the deceased per annum: Rs.4,000/12= Rs.48,000.00 3. As the deceased died of leaving behind her husband and two minor children, 1/3rd of her income shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the remainder would be Rs.48,000/- x 2/3= Rs.32,000.00 4. Relevant multiplier for age group 26 to 30 is “17”. Thus, loss of dependency is Rs.32,000/- x 17 = Rs.5,44,000.00 5. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000.00 6. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 7. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00 Total Rs.6,14,000.00 However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., as the claimants claimed Rs.6,00,000/- only in their claim petition. Assailing the same, the appellants – Insurer instituted the present Appeal. 4. Heard Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellants and none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in fastening liability on Insurer even on the principle of ‘pay and recover’, by overlooking the substantive plea that the offending vehicle, in which deceased was travelling, was goods transport vehicle, therefore, inasmuch as the owner of the said vehicle has engaged it to carry passengers, the same constituted clear violation of terms of policy. She further contended that since the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that both drivers of respective offending vehicles were negligent for causing the accident, there is a clear contributory negligence on the part of driver of DCM van, hence, the liability to the extent of half qua the DCM Van ought not to have been fastened on the appellant. Insofar as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though some of the grounds have been raised even questioning the same, in view of fairly settled legal position, she does not propose to argue or agitate the same. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. This is a case of collision between DCM Van and passenger bus. On 17.10.2015, the DCM Van carrying group of persons for attending marriage function was hit by bus belonging to Sri Krishna Travels. Due to the severity of accident, about 15 persons died on the spot and many got injured. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and involvement of both the vehicles mentioned above. Incidentally, both vehicles were insured with the same Insurer under different policies. Various grounds came to be urged before the Tribunal, all of which ultimately were answered in favour of claimants and compensation came to be awarded. 8. With respect to violation of conditions of policy, Insurer had raised two contentions- firstly, regarding drivers of both vehicles not having valid and effective driving licenses, and secondly, that the owner of DCM Van by allowing and engaging the passengers to travel in a goods vehicle, violated the terms of policy, therefore, liability, if any, could be fastened only on the owner, but not on the Insurer. This Court is now concerned with the second contention. The Tribunal has answered the same in negative against the Insurer. To see whether the approach and finding of Tribunal is right and justified, the plea and evidence on record, need to be examined. Inasmuch as, the Insurer has raised such plea, onus rests on it to prove the same. Conspicuously, the owner of DCM Van remained ex parte and he was not got examined by the Insurer. The best piece of evidence one can exhibit to support the plea raised would be to examine the owner of the DCM Van. Inasmuch as, the Insurer has raised such plea, onus rests on it to prove the same. Conspicuously, the owner of DCM Van remained ex parte and he was not got examined by the Insurer. The best piece of evidence one can exhibit to support the plea raised would be to examine the owner of the DCM Van. On the other hand, the husband of deceased and also the inmate of DCM Van, who got examined as PW.1 and PW.2, unequivocally stated that they travelled by DCM Van, however, nothing has been elicited from them to navigate that the DCM Van was engaged by and with the knowledge of owner. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to persuade this Court by referring to the pleadings, and part of evidence in bits and pieces to collate that the inmates and passengers of DCM Van themselves had hired the DCM Van with its owner. On careful consideration of evidence on record, this Court is afraid that such conclusion can it be straightaway drawn or even inferred. In the absence of any cogent evidence to support the case of Insurer, on the other hand, as it has been pleaded by claimants that they were merely travelling in the DCM Van for attending marriage, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Insurer failed to establish that the deceased to be a gratuitous passenger needs no interference. 10. Coming to the aspect of other part of submission that in view of the finding of the Tribunal that even the driver of DCM Van was equally negligent in causing the accident, no liability could have been fastened on the Insurer corresponding to its part, the same straightaway needs to be rejected for simple reason that neither the deceased nor inmates have any control on the DCM Van and they were mere passengers. Therefore, even if any negligence is attributable to the driver of DCM Van, it would not have any consequences on the passengers. 11. Just and Fair Compensation: It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any Appeal for enhancement or filed Cross-objection in the Appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. 11. Just and Fair Compensation: It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any Appeal for enhancement or filed Cross-objection in the Appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. A Division Bench of this Court had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana , 2025 SCC OnLine AP 164 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 14 SCC 712 , Surekha v. Santosh , (2021) 16 SCC 467 , Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali , (2021) 17 SCC 148 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Future Prospects The Tribunal though determined the income of the deceased as ?48,000/- per annum, it had not provided for the future prospects. The Tribunal should have provided for future prospects following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] . As the deceased was agricultural coolie and that aged between 26 to 30 years, in terms of the aforesaid judgment, future prospects @ 40% have to be awarded. The Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier of 17. Coming to the consortium, the Tribunal has committed an error and following the judgment in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra) , respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled for consortium. 13. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi(supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram , (2018) 11 SCC 780 , United India Insurance Co. 13. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi(supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram , (2018) 11 SCC 780 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , (2021) 11 SCC 780 , and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ?48,400/- per claimant each, ?18,150/- and ?18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case (supra) . S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income ?4,000/- x 12 = ?48,000/- 2. Future Prospects (at the age of 30 years) ?19,200/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income ?67,200/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) ?22,400/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency ?44,800/- 5. Multiplier of 17 for the age of 30 years 17 x ?44,800/- = ?7,61,600/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium (3 claimants) ?1,45,200/- (?48,400/- x 3) (ii) Loss of Estate ?18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ?18,150/- 7. Total Compensation ?9,43,100/- 14. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. stands dismissed. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants are awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.9,43,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any deposited earlier, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same equally in terms of the Award of the Tribunal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed