JUDGMENT : VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J. Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.932 of 2015, the claimant filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are husband, children and mother-in-law of SK. Thafi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with section 140(c) of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased i.e. SK. Thafi in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.04.2015. As per the averments in the claim petition, on 16.04.2015 at about 10.00 AM the deceased along with her husband i.e., the claim petitioner No.1 by name Nagur Shafi, were proceeding towards Kothapet Rythubazar from L.B. Nagar on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-29-BV-9958. When they reached in front of L.B. Nagar Indoor Stadium at about 10.00 a.m., a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. AP-29-TC-0550 proceeding in the same direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind without observing traffic rules. Due to the said impact, the motorcycle fell on the road and deceased, who was a pillion rider, was dragged to a distance of 15 feet, sustaining abdomen broken injury, head injury and other blunt injuries all over her body. Her husband, the rider of the motorcycle, sustained simple injuries. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to Ozone hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad for treatment, where the claim petitioner No.1, spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses. However, the deceased succumbed to injuries the same day while undergoing treatment. 4. The Police L.B.Nagar registered a case in Crime No.465/15, for the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC. The deceased SK. Thafi was aged about 33 years at the time of accident, she was hale and healthy, young and energetic and not suffering from any ailments. Prior to accident, the deceased was working as a flower vendor earning Rs.12,000/- per month, contributing to the family. The deceased SK. Thafi was aged about 33 years at the time of accident, she was hale and healthy, young and energetic and not suffering from any ailments. Prior to accident, the deceased was working as a flower vendor earning Rs.12,000/- per month, contributing to the family. Due to her sudden death, the claim petitioners, who were totally dependent on the income of the deceased, became destitute. There are no other persons to look after them and to see their welfare and they lost their life guard and bread winner; their life was badly affected; the unmarried petitioners lost their future prospects including education and marriage; they lost their further income of Rs.20,000/- per month. After the said accident, the petitioner No.1 also developed chronic illness due to trauma. The petitioners incurred expenses towards transportation, post-mortem, cremation, obsequies and other incidental charges and sought a total compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said offending vehicle i.e., bolero bearing No.AP-29-TC-0550, whereas, the respondent No.3 is the driver of the vehicle. Thus, it was claimed that all the three are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 6. The respondent No.1 and 3 remained exparte before the Tribunal. 7. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the averments in the claim petition including involvement of the vehicle in the accident, the alleged rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the age and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., bolero bearing No. AP-29-TC-0550 and the motorcycle bearing No. AP-29-BV-9958, did not possess valid license at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL: 8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: - i. Whether the deceased SK. Thafi died in the road accident which occurred on 16.04.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero bearing No.AP 29-TC 0550? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? III. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL: 9. Thafi died in the road accident which occurred on 16.04.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero bearing No.AP 29-TC 0550? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? III. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL: 9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claim petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of the contesting respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except producing Ex. B1 i.e., copy of the insurance policy. 10. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and awarded compensation of Rs.5,36,759/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. Heard Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record including the grounds of appeal. 12. The learned counsel for Appellants/claimants submitted that though the claimant petitioners proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A8, and the learned Tribunal without considering the same, awarded meager amount. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that after considering all the aspects, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation, and no interference of this Court is warranted. IV. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? V. ANALYSIS 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners/appellants that the learned Tribunal failed to accept the income of the deceased as a flower Vendor earning Rs.12,000/- P.M. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar M. v. Managing Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 79 , wherein the monthly income of painter at Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/- P.M., accepted without any income proof. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/- P.M., accepted without any income proof. It is pertinent to note that in the above said decision, the claimant self assessed his monthly income as Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- and whereas the Honourable Supreme Court assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. In the instant case, the deceased, who was a flower vendor, was not a skilful labour when compared to the profession of a painter. Hence, the principle laid down in the above said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined the claimant No.1 as PW1, who had reiterated the averments of the claim petition including the monthly income of the deceased. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the claimants examined PW2, who categorically deposed that the deceased SK. Thafi, was working as a flower Vendor. PW2 further deposed that the deceased used to sell and purchase flowers from her shop, prepare all varieties of flower (garlands) "malas" was an expert in decorative floral designs for various events, functions and marriages. PW2 also stated that had the deceased been alive, she would have earned a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. She further deposed that she used to engage the services of deceased for various events and used to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per event. 16. There is no dispute that the deceased was engaged in the avocation of a flower vendor. As per the claim petition, the claimants claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. But as per the version of PW2, she used to engage the services of deceased for various events and that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per event. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not entirely consistent regarding the monthly income of the deceased. Further, the evidence of PW2 discloses that the income of the deceased was not regular. The claimants have also not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month on regular basis. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal declined to accept the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding monthly income of the deceased. At the same time, the monthly income of the deceased as fixed by the learned Tribunal at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month appears to be on the lower side. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal declined to accept the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding monthly income of the deceased. At the same time, the monthly income of the deceased as fixed by the learned Tribunal at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month appears to be on the lower side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Malakappa and others v. Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another, 2025 ACJ 1109 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in enhancing the monthly income of a coolie from Rs.7,000/- (as fixed by the Tribunal) to Rs.8,000/- per month. Following the said principle, a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month is considered appropriate in the present case keeping in view of the above discussion with regard to monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12). Since the claimants are four in number, one-fourth of the established income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting one-fourth established income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the actual income of the deceased comes to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.96,000/- - Rs.24,000/-). 17. The learned Tribunal rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 33 years as on the date of accident by considering Exs.A1 and A4 i.e., FIR and charge sheet. A perusal of Exs.A3 and A4 also discloses the age of the deceased as 33 years. It is settled principle of law that 40% of the established income must be added towards “future prospects” for persons below 40 years, including those who are self-employed. Since the deceased was aged about 33 years was self employed, future prospects @ 40% can be considered as rightly held by learned Tribunal. After considering future prospects @ 40%, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/- i.e., 40% of Rs.72,000/-). 18. Further, as deceased was aged 33 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case would be ‘16’ in view of the principle laid down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 18. Further, as deceased was aged 33 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case would be ‘16’ in view of the principle laid down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 . After multiplying the annual income of the deceased with the relevant multiplier, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,12,800/-(Rs.1,00,800/- x 16) towards loss of dependency. 19. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation under the Heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral expenses. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads, which include compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, by following the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further contended that the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- + 7,000/- (10% extra) under the head of consortium, whereas as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanuram , 2018 ACJ 2782 SC , the four claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium to a tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. 20. It is to be seen from the record that the claimant No.1 being the husband of the deceased was awarded Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium by the learned Tribunal. However, no amount was awarded to claimant Nos.2 and 3 (minor children) under the head of parental consortium. Therefore, the claimant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors by the date of the accident, are entitled for Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each + 10% enhancement) towards loss of parental consortium. Since claimant No.4 being the mother – in - law of the deceased, is not entitled for any amount under the head of ‘consortium’. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the four claimants are entitled toRs.40,000/- each towards consortium to a tune of Rs.1,60,000/-, is untenable. 21. The claimants sought reimbursement of medical bills under Exs.A7 and A8 for Rs.41,900/- and Rs.14,659/- respectively, and the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amounts. 22. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,34,359/- under various heads and the details of which are as under: S.No. Description of head Amount (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.16,12,800/- 2. 22. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,34,359/- under various heads and the details of which are as under: S.No. Description of head Amount (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.16,12,800/- 2. Conventional Heads awarded to Claimant No.1 Rs. 77,000/- 3. Parental consortium to claimant Nos.3 and 4 Rs. 88,000/- 4. Medical bills under Exs.A7 & A8 Rs. 56,559/- Total Rs.18,34,359/- 23. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners/appellants further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest 12% instead of 9% P.A., relying upon the Apex Court Judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and others, 2012 ACJ.2131 S.C. and also Magma’s case (supra) 24. It is to be noted that Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act does not prescribe any fixed rate of interest. Courts – be it the Tribunal, High Court or Honourable Supreme Court have awarded varying rate of interest based on the facts and circumstances of each case. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act conferring discretion upon the Tribunal in such manner. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Niru @ Niharika and others, 2025 INSC 822 the Honourable Apex Court observed as under: “8. Further contention taken is the higher rate of interest of9%, in challenge of which several precedents were placed before us. From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980’s, Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in the 1990’s. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more. Considering the over-all circumstances especially the long delay caused, we are of the opinion that 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially noticing the accident having occurred in the year 1995.” 25. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more. Considering the over-all circumstances especially the long delay caused, we are of the opinion that 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially noticing the accident having occurred in the year 1995.” 25. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal at 9% per annum is just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwarranted so far as rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. VI. CONCLUSION 26. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal as indicated above. VII. RESULT 27. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.5,36,759/- to Rs.18,34,359/- which shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Since, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on the date of filing the petition as well as on the date of passing the award, the learned Tribunal directed that the compensation awarded to the minors be deposited in any nationalized bank until they attain the majority. As more than ten years have passed from the date of filing the petition, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 would now have certainly attained the age of majority. 28. Out of the total compensation:- the claimant No.1 is awarded an amount of Rs.11,34,359/-, the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each and the Claimant No.4, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, is awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 29. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, all the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares out of the compensation awarded by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.