JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in MACMA Nos.7, 8, 9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 86, 129, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of 2023 and respondent-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in MACMA Nos.650, 659 and 680 of 2023, Sri Kuriti Vijaya Prem Swami Naidu, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants in MACMA Nos.650, 644, 651, 659 and 680 of 2023 and respondents-claimants in MACMA Nos.7, 8, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of 2023, Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent–Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sri Akkam Eshwar and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants in MACMA Nos.9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 86 and 129 of 2023 and Ms.P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in MACMA No.644 of 2023. 3. Some of the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and some are filed by the claimants assailing the orders dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the respective M.V.O.Ps. 4. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the MVOPs. 5. The facts leading to filing of the MVOPs are that on 14.05.2016, the respective deceased and the injured persons belonging to one family were travelling in an Auto bearing No.TS 01 UA 5328 from Navipet Village to Adelli Temple at Sarangapur Village, and when the auto reached Haryali Petrol Bunk at 10.50. pm, a Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TC 0699, with the load of concrete stones, drove by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Auto in the opposite direction, as a result of which, out of 17 inmates of the Auto, 15 have died on the spot and the other two persons sustained grievous injuries. 6. Therefore, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing respective MVOPs claiming different amounts towards compensation along with interest. 7. The Insurance Company, who was impleaded in all the MVOPs before the Tribunal, has contested the MVOPs by filing a written statement, whereas the owners of the Auto and Tipper Lorry were set exparte. 6. Therefore, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing respective MVOPs claiming different amounts towards compensation along with interest. 7. The Insurance Company, who was impleaded in all the MVOPs before the Tribunal, has contested the MVOPs by filing a written statement, whereas the owners of the Auto and Tipper Lorry were set exparte. The Insurance Company denied the contentions raised by the claimants and stated that 17 members were travelling in an auto, wherein only 4 members were permitted, and on account of overload, the accident occurred. It is also stated that by inducting 17 persons, the owner of the auto violated the insurance policy. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry, and therefore, the Insurance Company denied its liability. 8. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed certain issues for its consideration. Before the Tribunal, the parties led evidence, both oral as well as documentary to establish their case. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration various factual aspects, partly allowed some claims granting various amounts towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed these appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the Shriram Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the legal defences raised by the appellant in the written statement. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry alone and the complaint was given against the Tipper Lorry driver, and police have filed the charge sheet after thorough investigation against the Tipper Lorry Driver. 11. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to examine the evidence of eye-witness (PW.2) that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Tipper Lorry Driver. It is finally contended that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to head on collision. 12. It is further contended that even if it is assumed that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, then the appellant is entitled to pay compensation for only four claims including driver of the vehicle as per the conditions of the policy and not all the claims. 12. It is further contended that even if it is assumed that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, then the appellant is entitled to pay compensation for only four claims including driver of the vehicle as per the conditions of the policy and not all the claims. Further, the Tribunal after elaborate discussion itself has given finding that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of Tipper Lorry driver and contrary to that finding came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to ‘head on collision’ and made both the insurance complies liable to pay the compensation equally. With regard to the rate of interest, it is contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting interest at 8% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 13. As regards the income of the injured, it is contended that the learned Tribunal considered Rs.4,200/- per month, who were doing labour work which is on higher side though the income and avocation were not proved. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken 40% as future prospectus into consideration as the deceased are not permanent employees. Therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and allow the appeals as prayed for. 14. On the other hand, Sri Kuriti Vijaya Prem Swami Naidu, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation by making all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is however contended that the compensation awarded in respect of minors is meager, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v/s. Nunu Chand Mahto @Nemchand Mahto , SLP (Civil) No.5345 of 2019 dated 13.10.2022 , wherein a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lumpsum was awarded to the minor child. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 15. Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company vehemently contended that there is contributory negligence and the Oriental Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 15. Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company vehemently contended that there is contributory negligence and the Oriental Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K.V.Bros.(P) Limited v/s. M.Karumai Ammal , (1980) 3 SCC 457 , wherein it was held that the Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties and technicalities. 16. Similarly, learned counsel has placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Khenyei v/s. New India Assurance Company Limited , (2015) 9 SCC 273 , wherein it was held that in the cases of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant therein is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort-feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. And also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Sabitha v/s. Brahma Swamulu , 2025 LawSuit (SC) 633 , wherein basing on the facts of the said case, it was held that the apportionment of liability can be fixed at 50% for each but not only one. 17. Learned counsel further contended that the police in the charge sheet except stating that the Tipper fell down on the Auto and make it crushed and the road metal load i.e. stone chips poured down on to the auto, which resulted that D1 to D15 to die on the spot, there is no whisper about the negligence on the part of the Tipper Driver and therefore, disputed the liability on the Oriental Insurance Company. 18. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers of the auto and tipper, thereby causing accident, and therefore, the liability may be fixed to both the insurance companies as well as the owners of the offending vehicles jointly and severally, subject to pay and recovery. 19. I have given my earnest considerations and perused the record. 20. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.05.2016. 19. I have given my earnest considerations and perused the record. 20. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.05.2016. And out of the 17 passengers travelling in the auto, 15 passengers have died on the spot on account of the head on collision of the Tipper Lorry Driver. Though there is dispute as regards the award of quantum of compensation, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again, the Tribunal on appreciation of the material available on record, had rightly awarded compensation in the case of death of the passengers. 21. Though there is dispute as regards the contributory negligence and ought not to have permitted more number of passengers to travel in the Auto, on account of poverty and illiteracy, they were travelled beyond the capacity. Since, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the issue with respect to the contributory negligence. 22. Accordingly, the award of compensation by the Tribunal is justified and does not call for interference in respect of MACMA Nos.7, 8, 10, 11, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40 and 86 of 2023. 23. So far as the compensation granted by the Tribunal in respect of minors is concerned, this Court intends to enhance the same even in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. In this regard, this Court refers to the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. E.Seseelamma and others, , 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 wherein it was held that: 64. In Chaya v. Bapusaheb, ( (1994) 2 SCC 41 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that this provision (Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C) is based on a salutary principle that the appellate court should have the power to do complete justice between the parties. The rule confers a wide discretionary power on the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the case may require, notwithstanding the fact that the Appeal is only with regard to a part of the decree or that the party in whose favour the power is proposed to be exercised has not filed any appeal or cross- objection. While it is true that since the power is derogative of the general principle that a party cannot avoid the effect of a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection and, therefore, the power has to be exercised with care and caution, it is also true that in an appropriate case, the appellate court should not hesitate to exercise the discretion conferred by the said rule. 65. In Prahlad v. State of Maharashtra, ( (2010) 10 SCC 458 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the appellate court is empowered to pass any order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression “order ought to have been made” would obviously mean an order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying “the court may pass such further or other order as the case may require”. This expression “case” would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. 67. We are therefore of the considered view that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 are to be invoked which are being invoked accordingly, as we find that there is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation. There is also no prejudice being caused to a person not a party before the Court. The appellant has been heard on the point of just compensation. 24. Therefore, insofar as MACMA Nos.9, 31, 34, 38, 47, 129, 644 and 659 of 2023 are concerned, since the deceased are minors, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi, the compensation awarded is enhanced to a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at 7% per annum. These MACMAs are accordingly disposed of. These MACMAs are accordingly disposed of. 25. Insofar as MACMA No.650 of 2023 is concerned, since the notional income was considered at Rs.4,200/-, taking into consideration of the accident occurred in the year 2016, the minimum wages of the unskilled labour would be more than Rs.4,200/- per month. However, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the notional income from Rs.4,200/- to Rs.6,500/- per month and if 40% is added towards future prospects, it would come to Rs.9,100/-. And if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs.4,550/- (9100/2). The appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased is ‘18’. Then, the compensation can be arrived at Rs.4,550/- X 12 = 54,600/-. Now, Rs.54,600 x 18 = 9,82,800/-. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v/s. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (16) SCC 680 Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total comes to Rs.10,12,800/-. Accordingly, MACMA No.650 of 2023 is allowed. 26. So far as MACMA No.680 of 2023 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.8,65,712/- by taking the notional income at Rs.6,500/-. However, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the notional income from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.7,000/-. If 40% is added towards future prospects, then, it comes to Rs.9,800/- per month and Rs.1,17,600/- per annum. If 1/3 rd is deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.78,400/- and the multiplier ‘11’ is applied, then, it comes to Rs.8,62,400/-. In terms of Pranay Sethi, (5 supra), Rs.15,000/- is granted towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- funeral expenses, and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs.8,87,400/-. Accordingly, MACMA No.680 of 2023 is allowed. 27. In respect of other appeals, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. However, it is made clear that in terms of the settled position of law, as well as recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case of composite negligence in Khenyei (supra), the insurance companies are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal and they are at liberty to recover the entire compensation from the owners of the offending vehicles. 28. In all the batch of MACMAs, the rate of interest is restricted to 7% per annum, instead of 8% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 28. In all the batch of MACMAs, the rate of interest is restricted to 7% per annum, instead of 8% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 29. Accordingly, MACMA Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 47, 86, 129, 644 and 659 of 2023 are accordingly disposed of subject to the principle of ‘pay and recovery’. MACMA No.651 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.