JUDGMENT : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. Introductory: 1(i). M.A.C.M.A.No.455 of 2012 is directed against the order and decree dated 03.10.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 which was filed by the legal representatives of one Somala Venkata Subbaiah (deceased No.1) and M.A.C.M.A.No.3162 of 2014 is directed against the order and decree dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005 filed by the legal representatives of Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy alias Narasimhulu (deceased No.2). Both cases were filed claiming compensation for the deaths of deceased Nos.1 and 2, respectively, mentioned in the respective cases. (ii). The above said claim petitions were decided on different dates by the same Court. Since the factual aspects relating to the accident and the defences are the same, although the quantum of claims made is different, both matters were heard and are being decided together. Matter and issue common in both the cases: Accident: 2. On 26.08.2002, both the deceased left Kadapa for Naidupalem in TATA Sumo bearing No.AP04-B-6434 and when they were near Gowravaramu Village of Kavalai Mandal of Nellore District, the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and being unable to control the vehicle, dashed against the lorry bearing No.AHH-3079, whereby the accident occurred. On receipt of information, a case in Crime No.116 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Section 304(A) IPC. However, the same was abated in view of the death of the driver. 3. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. 4. On the death of respondent No.1 (owner of the TATA Sumo vehicle), his legal representatives were added. 5. In both cases, the owner and his legal representatives remained ex parte. Case of the Insurance Company: 6(i). There was overload and unauthorized use of vehicle. Hence there is violation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. (ii). Further, it is also the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to the accident and dependency of the claimants shall be proved and the negligence of the driver of the lorry is the cause for the accident. However, the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry. However, the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry. Case of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005: 7. Deceased No.1 / Somala Venkata Subbaiah was aged 30 years and was running a hotel at Naidupalem. He was the sole bread winner of the family. The claimants lost the valuable financial and emotional support of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. Case of Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005: 8. Deceased No.2 / Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy was working as Civil Engineer in K.M.C. Constructions Ltd., and was getting a salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. He was further privately attending work relating to planning and preparing estimates of lands and structures. He was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month as a building planner. He was aged about 45 years. He was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to his death, the whole family lost all the valuable financial and emotional support. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. 9. Both appeals are filed by the claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 as against the claim made for Rs.7,00,000/- and the compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005 as against the claim made for Rs.20,00,000/-. 10. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Scope of appeals: 11(i). Since the appeals are filed by the claimants, the issues relating to accident, negligence, liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation, non-joinder of the owner and the Insurance Company of the lorry etc. are all out of the scope of the appeals. (ii). Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and adequate is alone the subject matter of the appeals. 12. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 for the death of one Somala Venkata Subbaiah under the impugned order and decree dated 03.10.2011 to his legal representatives is just, adequate, sufficient and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement, if so, to what tune? 12. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 for the death of one Somala Venkata Subbaiah under the impugned order and decree dated 03.10.2011 to his legal representatives is just, adequate, sufficient and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement, if so, to what tune? 2) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005 for the death of one Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy alias Narasimhulu under the impugned order and decree dated 23.04.2014 to his legal representatives is just, adequate, sufficient and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement, if so to what tune? 3) What is the result of M.A.C.M.A.No.455 of 2012? 4) What is the result of M.A.C.M.A.No.3162 of 2014? 13.Evidence recorded in both cases: (a) M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Soma Suseela Wife of the deceased No.1 P.W.2: S. Narayana Sarpanch of Marriapadu Village P.W.3: D. Nageswara Rao Cleaner of lorry bearing No.AHH 3079 Documentary evidence Ex.A1:Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2:Certified copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A3: Income Certificate. Ex.A4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A5: Attested copy of P.M. Certificate. Ex.A6: Attested copy of Final Report issued by C.I. of Police, Kavali Ex.A7: 162 Cr.P.C. statement of D. Nageswara Rao S/o. Balaiah. On behalf of the petitioner(s). (b) M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005: Arguments in the appeals: 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned MACT failed to take note of the age, occupation and income of the deceased and that the compensation awarded is very meager. Compensation was not awarded under all the required heads by the learned MACT in tune with the settled norms. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the compensation already awarded is excessive and that they are no grounds to interfere. Point Nos.1 and 2: Precedential guidance:- 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. 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 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: 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. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 18. 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. e) Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 20. 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. 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.” Analysis, Reasoning and Findings: M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005: 21. P.W.2 in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005, the Sarpanch of Marripadu Village Grama Panchayat disposed that the deceased No.1 was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and that he had issued Ex.A3 document indicating the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. It was suggested to him that he was not competent to issue Ex.A3. However, upon considering the age of the deceased and thesocio- economic circumstances of the year 2002, in which the accident occurred, the income of Rs.5,000/- per month of the deceased, as stated by P.W.2 is found fit to be acceptable. Even if the same is considered as excessive, it can be taken as income, including the possibility of progress in income. 22. The acceptance of the income at Rs.3,000/- done by the learned MACT is found to be not correct, particularly for the reason that future prospects are not added. Therefore, the income of the deceased is accepted at Rs.5,000/- per month considering the socio-economic circumstances from which the deceased hails and upon considering his age, whereby the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/- and the contribution of deceased, after deducting 1/3rd comes to Rs.40,000/- per annum. For the age group of 30 years, multiplier applicable is „17?. Whereby, upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-x17). All the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each under the heads of spousal and parental consortium. For the age group of 30 years, multiplier applicable is „17?. Whereby, upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-x17). All the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each under the heads of spousal and parental consortium. Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005: 23. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005, the learned MACT accepted the income of the deceased No.2 Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy alias Narasimhulu at Rs.4,000/- discarding Ex.A3 and the evidence of P.W.3. 24. The reason assigned by the learned MACT for discarding the evidence of P.W.3 is that the same is not satisfactory and that he admitted that he had no personal knowledge. 25. Ex.A3 shows that the deceased worked in the said organization, K.M.C. Constructions Limited, Hyderabad as a Civil Engineer and was paid a salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. P.W.3 confirmed that Ex.A3 was issued by the company, K.M.C. Constructions Limited and duly signed by the Managing Director, Mr. M. Goutham Reddy. 26. No doubt, P.W.3 has not issued Ex.A3. P.W.3 stated that the deceased was working as a Civil Engineer from 01.08.2001 to 27.08.2002. The details of segregation of salary are not there and the records were not produced. However, the qualification of the deceased as an engineer is not disputed. Upon considering the same, fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- by the learned MACT is found not proper, upon examination of the socio-economic circumstances of the year in which the accident occurred. 27. Upon considering the undisputed age of the deceased Somala Chinna Narasimha Reddy alias Narasimhulu and his qualification as an engineer and in the light of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is reasonable to accept his income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, upon adding 30% towards future prospects, the same comes to Rs.7,800/- per month, which comes to Rs.93,600/- per annum. Upon deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.62,400/-. Hence, the same is considered as the Multiplicand. For the age group of 45 years, multiplier applicable is „14? and upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation comes to Rs.8,73,600/-(RS.62,400/- x 14). 28. Upon deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.62,400/-. Hence, the same is considered as the Multiplicand. For the age group of 45 years, multiplier applicable is „14? and upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation comes to Rs.8,73,600/-(RS.62,400/- x 14). 28. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 29. Upon considering entire case and contentions, the entitlement of claimants in both cases for compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is concluded as follows: Details of entitlement of claimants in respect of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and relevant aspects as to quantification of compensation: 30. For the aforesaid reasons stated, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered concluding that the claimants in respect of deceased No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 are entitled for compensation at Rs.8,30,000/- and the claimants in respect of deceased No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.267 of 2005 are entitled for compensation at Rs.10,63,600/-. Point Nos.3 and 4: 31. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 and 2, Point Nos.3 and 4 are answered as follows: M.A.C.M.A.No.455 of 2012: Result: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2005 at Rs.4,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Apportionment: (iii) Claimant No.1 / the wife of the deceased No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,30,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (iv) Claimant No.2 / the daughter of the deceased No.1 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. (v) Claimant No.3 / the son of the deceased No.1 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. Court fee: (vi) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. Liability: (vii) Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT is liable to pay the compensation amount in view of the Insurance Policy. Time for Deposit and Mode of Payment: (viii) Time for payment / deposit of balance amount is two months. Liability: (vii) Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT is liable to pay the compensation amount in view of the Insurance Policy. Time for Deposit and Mode of Payment: (viii) Time for payment / deposit of balance amount is two months. (a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number of the respective claimants within 15 days from today, the Insurance Company shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the necessary proof thereof before the learned MACT. (b) If the Insurance Company deposits the amount before the learned MACT, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. Costs: (ix) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal. M.A.C.M.A.No.3162 of 2014: Result: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.3162 of 2014 at Rs.4,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,63,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Apportionment: (iii) Claimant No.1 / the wife of the deceased No.2 is entitled for Rs.4,63,600/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (iv) Claimant No.2 / the son of the deceased No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. (v) Claimant No.3 / the daughter of the deceased No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. (vi) Claimant No.4 / the daughter of the deceased No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest. Liability: (vii) Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT is liable to pay the compensation amount in view of the Insurance Policy. Time for Deposit and Mode of Payment: (viii) Time for payment / deposit of balance amount is two months. (a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number of the respective claimants within 15 days from today, the Insurance Company shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the necessary proof thereof before the learned MACT. (b) If the Insurance Company deposits the amount before the learned MACT, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. Costs: (ix) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal. 32. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.