JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The Award dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in O.P.No.86 of 2017, is under challenge in these petitions. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with proportionate costs and 9% interest per annum to the claimants on account of the death of Mr. Danish Hussain in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.01.2016. The Tribunal held the respondent Nos.1 to 3 (i.e., the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-01-AG-7733, the owner of the Car, and the insurance company, respectively) jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 1.1 Challenging the Award, the respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company Limited filed MACMA No.326 of 2016. The claimants, on the other hand, are aggrieved by the Tribunal restricting the compensation to Rs.20,00,000, without enhancing it to Rs.25,00,000 by considering the facts and evidence, and therefore the Claimants filed Cross Objections No.4 of 2021 seeking amendment of claim from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.25,00,000. 1.2 As the petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will be referred as Claimants, and insurance company. 2. The facts of the case, as per the claim petition in O.P.No.86 of 2017, are that on 13.01.2016, at about 10:15 p.m., the deceased, Danish Hussain, was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle from Pittalwada to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad. When they reached in front of Thirumala Petrol Bunk, a car bearing No. AP-01-AG-7733, driven by Respondent No.1, came from the Collectorate Chowk side without observing the oncoming vehicular traffic and took a right turn towards the petrol bunk in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed. The car dashed into the motorcycle from behind, due to which the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle fell down. The deceased sustained a skull fracture and other bleeding injuries. Both the deceased and the motorcycle rider were immediately shifted to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad. After receiving first aid, the deceased was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. However, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2016. The deceased sustained a skull fracture and other bleeding injuries. Both the deceased and the motorcycle rider were immediately shifted to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad. After receiving first aid, the deceased was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. However, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2016. 2.1 The Police, Adilabad II Town, registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2016 under Section 337 IPC against Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 , 338, and 304-A IPC read with Section 181 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , as Respondent No.1 was holding only an Light Motor Vehicle learner’s license, valid from 22.08.2015 to 21.02.2016. 2.2 The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was 22 years old and earning Rs.18,000/- per month as a Sales Executive in RS Traders, Adilabad, contributing his entire income towards the welfare of the petitioners. Due to his sudden and untimely death, the petitioners not only lost their financial dependency but also suffered immense physical and mental agony.Since the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP-01-AG-7733 by its driver, Respondent No.1, the Respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner, and insurer of the said car, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. 3. Respondent No.2 (owner of the Car No.AP-01-AG-7733) filed counter affidavit. Respondent No.1 (driver of the Car) adopted the counter of respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 categorically denied the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner of the accident, the alleged rashness and negligence attributed to him, as well as the age, occupation, income of the deceased, and the dependency of the petitioners on the deceased's income. It is contended that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of Respondent No.2. On the contrary, the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle were themselves negligent, having lost control of the vehicle and fallen on their own. The vehicle of Respondent No.2 did not dash or collide with the motorcycle as alleged. A false case has been foisted by the petitioners, falsely implicating Respondent No.2 and his car for the purpose of claiming compensation. The vehicle of Respondent No.2 did not dash or collide with the motorcycle as alleged. A false case has been foisted by the petitioners, falsely implicating Respondent No.2 and his car for the purpose of claiming compensation. 3.1 It is further submitted that although Respondent No.1 was holding only a learner's license at the time of the accident, he was driving the vehicle in compliance of traffic rules. Without prejudice to the above contentions, Respondent No.2 contended that his vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No.3 under a valid insurance policy (valid from 11.10.2015 to 10.10.2016), and the policy was in force on the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurer has to indemnify Respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.3–insurance company filed counter, disputing the manner in which the accident allegedly occurred, the allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1 (the driver of the car), and even the involvement of the deceased in the said accident. The insurance company further denies the age, income, and occupation of the deceased as well as the dependency of the petitioners on his earnings. It contends that the accident may have been caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, and hence the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are proper and necessary parties who have not been impleaded. It is contended that in the absence of valid driving licence at the time of driving the Car, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify. While admitting that the vehicle was insured under its policy, the insurance company submits that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, and any breach thereof would absolve it of any liability arising out of the accident. 5. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and documents Ex.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, and documents Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked. 5.1 The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed the impugned Award, granting a compensation of Rs.20,00,000 with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment, holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5.1 The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed the impugned Award, granting a compensation of Rs.20,00,000 with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment, holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5.2 Challenging the Award, the insurance company filed MACMA No.326 of 2016; and the Claimants filed Cross Objections No.4 of 2021. 6. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company; and Mr. L. Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal grossly erred in the quantification of compensation, having arrived at the awarded sum based on mere surmises and conjectures, without proper legal or evidentiary foundation; that the claimants have miserably failed to establish the age, occupation, and income of the deceased by producing any acceptable documentary evidence; that the Tribunal, having rightly disbelieved Ex.A8—the purported Salary Certificate—ought to have adopted only the notional income as per the settled law; that fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is highly excessive and unjustified; that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, and as per binding precedents, 50% of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses; the Tribunal, however, erroneously deducted only 1/3rd, thereby inflating the compensation. In addition, the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects despite the fact that there was no established or proved income of the deceased, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) ACJ 2700 ; that the Tribunal has also exceeded the permissible limits under non-pecuniary heads, granting Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of old age support to the mother and Rs.5,000/- towards transport, which are clearly impermissible under the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), and hence the award under those heads is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the admitted fact that the deceased was riding a motorcycle along with two others, in clear violation of statutory rules, and that the rider held only a learner’s license, which amounts to a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, and at the very least, warranted a finding of 30% contributory negligence, which the Tribunal failed to record. The award of interest at 9% per annum is also highly excessive in the current economic scenario, where nationalised banks offer only about 6% interest on fixed deposits, and thus requires downward revision; that awarding a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- against a claimed compensation of the same amount, without proper scrutiny, is wholly arbitrary, excessive, and unsustainable in law, and thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants, by referring to the grounds in the Cross Objections No.4 of 2021, essentially contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as only Rs.10,000 per month which is less, and the Tribunal ought to have considered the Ex.A-8, Ex.A-10, Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-13 and also the evidence of PW-3 to assess the income at Rs.18,000 per month. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.20,00,000 (which is the claimed quantum) and the Tribunal ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,00,000, apart from granting interest at 12% per annum. 9. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that it is the specific recording by the Tribunal that the respondents could not elicit any contrary version from PW-1 (the father of the deceased) in his cross-examination though PW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Further, the rider of the motorcycle Mr. 9. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that it is the specific recording by the Tribunal that the respondents could not elicit any contrary version from PW-1 (the father of the deceased) in his cross-examination though PW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Further, the rider of the motorcycle Mr. Juned Bin Jafar @ Zavid has deposed about the manner of occurrence of accident, and he deposed that he along with the deceased was going on his motorcycle from Pittalawada to RIMS, Adilabad and when they reached in the front of Thirumala Petrol Bunk, the offending Car driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, turned towards Tirumala Petrol Bunk and dashed the motorcycle due to which the deceased and PW-2 fell down on the road and sustained injuries, wherein the deceased suffered fracture of skull and other injuries, and PW-2 suffered simple injuries. Further, in the cross-examination of PW-2, nothing was elicited contradicting his deposition in chief examination. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and also the Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- inquest panchanama, Ex.A3-postmortem report, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, and Ex.A6-charge sheet, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. Further, the reasoning recorded for not attributing contributory negligence do not warrant interference in view of the finding that the respondents could not prove by cogent rebuttal evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, non-impleading of insurer of the motorcycle is not fatal to the claimants case. 9.1 With regard to the assessment of the income of the deceased, PW-3 (the person who issued Ex.A8-Salary-cum-Service Certificate) deposed that the deceased was Sales Executive in their Mobile Shop from January 2014 to the date of his demise on 14.01.2016 and the salary paid in December 2015 was Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal observed that Ex.A8 does not show which benefits are included in the salary, and moreover the Ex.A8 does not disclose the registration details of the company, and PW-3 has not filed any document showing the list of employees worked/working in the firm. The Tribunal observed that Ex.A8 does not show which benefits are included in the salary, and moreover the Ex.A8 does not disclose the registration details of the company, and PW-3 has not filed any document showing the list of employees worked/working in the firm. Further, PW-3 has not produced pay register in support of the claim of payment of salary of Rs.18,000 and the duration for which he paid such quantum of salary, except for issuing Ex.A8-salary certificate. 9.2 Apart from Ex.A8 and evidence of PW-3, the Tribunal considered the documents Ex.A-10 to show that the deceased has computer knowledge, and other certificates Exs.A-11 to Ex.A-13 to show that the deceased was active in extra-curricular activities like Scouts and Guides, Games and paintings etc., Considering all this profile, and also the nature of sales job performed by the deceased, the Tribunal made an assessment of income at Rs.10,000 per month. This Court is of the opinion that the assessment of income by the Tribunal is reasonable and realistic in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the same needs no interference. 9.3 With regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the SSC Certificate (Ex.A-9), the inquest panchanama (Ex.A-2) and postmortem report (Ex.A-3) filed by the claimants to prove the deceased was 22 years old by the date of accident. The respondents did not dispute the said documents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded with regard to the age of the deceased does not require any interference. 9.4 With regard to the compliance of insurance policy, the driver of the offending Car produced Ex.A5-learner’s driving licence. Though it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the driver had no valid driving licence, there is no reliable evidence adduced in support of the contention. It is the specific recording of the Tribunal that Ex.A5 proved that respondent No.1 holds a valid driving licence, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh , [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ] , the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured in case of a valid driving licence, including a valid learner’s driving licence; and the burden is on the insurance company to prove its pleading that the driver has no valid driving licence. The insurance company is therefore liable to indemnify the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner). 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was 22 years old, income of Rs.10,000 per month, and unmarried. He is survived by parents and an unmarried sister.The Tribunal has not referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi. Applying the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] , and taking the assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000, the annual income would be Rs.1,20,000 (Rs.10,000 × 12). 10.1 The deceased was 22 years old, and self-employed or in an unorganized sector, so, 40% addition is allowed towards future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi). Therefore, the total income including future prospects would be Rs.1,68,000. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction is applicable as per Pranay Sethi.So, the loss to the dependents would be Rs.84,000 (at 50% of Rs.1,68,000) 10.2 For age 22, the applicable multiplier is 18 as per Sarla Verma.So, the total Loss of dependency = Rs.84,000 × 18 = Rs.15,12,000 10.3 Further, considering the law in Pranay Sethi, Rs.15,000 is awarded towards Loss of estate Rs.15,000, and Rs.15,000 towards Funeral expenses. The judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017, and the consortium component was awarded at Rs.40,000 per parent, with upward revision by 10% every three years. It’s close to 9 years now since the judgment in Pranay Sethi, and therefore it would be appropriate to proportionately enhance the consortium. The parental consortium would therefore be Rs.1,04,000 (@ Rs.52,000 each to the parents). Further, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,000 to the unmarried sister towards loss of love and affection on account of the death of the deceased. 11. The impugned Award was passed in 2018, and the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) has been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in 2017. It may be noted that Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), laid down certain guidelines while considering various factors like age, income, personal deductions, etc., to bring uniformity and fairness while adjudicating the claims and awarding amounts under various Heads. 12. It may be noted that Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), laid down certain guidelines while considering various factors like age, income, personal deductions, etc., to bring uniformity and fairness while adjudicating the claims and awarding amounts under various Heads. 12. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur , [ (2003) 7 SCC 484 ] , wherein it was held as follows: "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable ". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance.The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. if it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC ( 1999(1) SCC 90 )”. 13. The expression 'just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. if it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC ( 1999(1) SCC 90 )”. 13. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur (supra), and Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation awarded under various Heads by the Tribunal is required to be modified and assessed fairly. 14 . In view of the foregoing, and by applying the law in Pranay Sethi (supra), and Sarla Verma (supra), the total compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be Rs. 16,71,000 (i.e., Rs.15,12,000 + Rs.30,000 + Rs.1,04,000 + Rs.25,000). Further, the interest of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is revised to 6% per annum uniformly from the date of petition to the date of actual payment,keeping in view the rationale in Sarla Verma (supra). 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company (MACMA No.326 of 2019) is allowed by revising the compensation to Rs.16,71,000 and also revising the interest to 6% per annum uniformly from the date of petition to the date of actual payment. The Cross Objections filed by the Claimants (Cross Objections No.4 of 2021) is dismissed. The amounts already paid shall be taken into account while depositing the compensation by the insurance company. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.