JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. Both these appeals arise out of challenge made to the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.402 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, one preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and the other by the AP State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’), questioning the award of compensation. Hence, both appeals are disposed of by common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) M.V.O.P. was instituted by the parents, wife and minor children of deceased Kothakota Jaya Bharath Reddy claiming compensation on account of death caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435 belonging to APSRTC. It is claimed that on 12.12.2012, while the deceased and his friend namely Jangam Chandrasekhar were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.AP 02AF 8008 from Narpala to Anantapur, bus belonging to APSRTC came in opposite direction in high speed and dashed the car, resulting in severe injuries to both passengers in the car. The deceased was initially treated at Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapur and later on, as per the advise of the doctors shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital at Bangalore. He was treated as inpatient from 13.12.2012 to 19.02.2013 and later on, shifted to I-AIM (Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine), Health Care Center, Bangalore, where he was treated from 19.02.2013 to 02.03.2013 and again, he was shifted back to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore, on 02.03.2013. While undergoing treatment there, he succumbed on 05.03.2013. (b) It is stated that the deceased was aged 39 years and he was having earnings of Rs.8,00,000/- per annum as agricultural income, besides also earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on real estate business. It is also stated that the claimants had incurred expenditure of Rs.19,63,616/- towards medical treatment at aforesaid hospitals, besides incurring additional amounts for transport, lodging, boarding of attendants and miscellaneous expenses. In all, a claim was laid for Rs.60,00,000/- including the statutory claims towards loss of consortium. It is also stated that the claimants had incurred expenditure of Rs.19,63,616/- towards medical treatment at aforesaid hospitals, besides incurring additional amounts for transport, lodging, boarding of attendants and miscellaneous expenses. In all, a claim was laid for Rs.60,00,000/- including the statutory claims towards loss of consortium. (c) The respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident occurred not because of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but rather the deceased who was driving the car drove negligently and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Corporation. Further, the income and occupation of the deceased was disputed and denied. (d) To prove the claim, the claimants have got examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A17 and Exs.C1 and C2 and on the other hand, the respondent has got examined R.W.1, the driver of the bus and no documents were marked. (e) The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief?” (f) On appreciation of evidence on record, so far as issue no.1, the Tribunal found that the bus which was coming in the opposite direction proceeding from Anantapur to Kadapa had dashed the car in which deceased was proceeding towards Anantapur and further that the incident had occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of bus by the driver resulting in severe injuries and death of the deceased. The Tribunal considering Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 – inquest report, Ex.A3 – post mortem examination report, Ex.A4 – rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.A5 – preliminary charge sheet and Ex.A6 – final charge sheet come to the above conclusion. It has also considered evidence of R.W.1, who was the driver of bus and having regard to his inconsistent stands in chief and cross, did not give much credence to the same. It has also considered evidence of R.W.1, who was the driver of bus and having regard to his inconsistent stands in chief and cross, did not give much credence to the same. Coming to issues 2 and 3, which relate to the quantum of compensation, though claimants have set up that deceased was having agricultural income and real estate income, as the same could not be established, the Tribunal therefore considered a notional income of Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased as 39 years, in terms of Ex.A7 - Secondary School Certificate, it has granted future prospects at the rate of 50% and has deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenses. It has applied multiplier of 15 and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.81,000/- per annum and the total income as Rs.12,15,000/-. Coming to the medical expenses, considering Exs.A10, A12 and A14, which are medical bills and A11 which is discharge summary, coupled with evidence of P.W.4, who is Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, the Tribunal allowed the medical expenses for Rs.19,63,616/- and thereby, total compensation of Rs.32,38,620/- was awarded and apportioned amongst the claimants. (g) The claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.1995 of 2016 seeking enhancement of compensation as they were dissatisfied with compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Corporation preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.2044 of 2016 challenging the compensation awarded to be excessive. 4. Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for APSRTC. 5. Learned counsel for APSRTC while commencing the arguments in MACMA No.2044 of 2016, without going to the aspect of liability, confining the challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded mainly contended that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day despite no evidence being placed on record to prove that neither the deceased was having agricultural income nor undertaking agricultural activity, and rather even assuming that he was cultivating the lands, will be entitled only for supervisory charges utmost can be considered as Rs.1000/- per month. In support of said submission, reliance is placed on Sannala Bhaskar Reddy v. M.Sreenivasulu and another , [2009 (4) ALT 323] Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal had granted future prospects at the rate of 50% considering the age of deceased as 39 years, rather in view of the guidelines provided in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , future prospects are to be allowed only at the rate of 40%. Coming to the medical expenses, learned counsel vehemently contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from perversity inasmuch as the medical expenses claimed under Exs.A10, A13 and A14 was allowed in toto without even examination of the concerned doctor who has treated the deceased, therefore, the same should be disallowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that as the Corporation has not disputed the occurrence of accident and death and having regard to the nature of burden of proof that is required to be discharged in cases of claims for compensation under MV Act, being on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation. He also contends that the income assessed by the Tribunal was merely a notional income and not that of either income from agriculture or agricultural undertaking, therefore, question of considering supervisory charges for undertaking such activity does not arise. The income considered by the Tribunal since is dehorse the agricultural activity, the judgment on which reliance is placed in this regard has no application. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence in relation to medical expenses i.e., Exs.A10 to A14 and also evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, in particular, Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, and allowed such expenses which is based on sound application of mind and does not call for any interference. He also contended that in so far as the statutory benefits such as conventional heads, the Tribunal has not granted the same, which the claimants are entitled in law, in support of which, reliance is sought to be placed on Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) . Lastly, he contends that the Tribunal has granted interest @7.5% per annum, which is meager and in view of various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for interest @9% per annum. 7. Lastly, he contends that the Tribunal has granted interest @7.5% per annum, which is meager and in view of various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for interest @9% per annum. 7. Considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants/respondents in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties? 2. Whether the interest @7.5% is reasonable? 3. To what relief?” 8. Point No.1:- 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. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others , MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited , (2022) 14 SCC 712 , Surekha v. Santosh , (2021) 16 SCC 467 , Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali , (2021) 17 SCC 148 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). 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. Income: 9. The main contentions advanced by learned counsel for the Corporation are on two aspects. Firstly, regarding the assessment of income of the deceased, it is contended that when the income of the deceased was claimed on the basis of agricultural activity from the lands owned, as the lands remained with legal heirs of the deceased, strictly the claimants will not be deprived of income from the said lands and such source remains with them, therefore, utmost the loss would be only to the extent of the supervisory services which the deceased undertook. Therefore, the Tribunal having found that there was no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning any income from agricultural sources and also that he was attending to agricultural work should not have considered his income as Rs.200/- per day, rather it should have been assessed on the principle of value of supervisory charges to which deceased was entitled. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Sannala Bhaskar Reddy’s case (supra). We find that there is no dispute on the proposition that is coined and dealt with in the above judgment. However, in the facts of the present case, no doubt the claimants have based the income of deceased to be derived from agricultural operations from out of an extent of Acres 18.63 cents owned by them, besides doing agricultural works in another parcel of land admeasuring acres 5.60 cents on lease, by which, an amount of 8 lakhs per annum was earned, but the Tribunal found that there was no documentary evidence to show that there was any agricultural land owned or leased by the deceased or any agricultural activity was undertaken by him and deriving an income of 8 lakhs per annum and further recorded finding that the claimants also did not prove specifically that deceased was attending to any agricultural work. Having rendered the above said findings, the Tribunal has merely considered the income of the deceased as notional income of @ Rs.200/- per day translating to Rs.72,000/- per annum and the same is unconnected to the claim of either agricultural income or earnings from agricultural activity. Therefore, this Court finds that inasmuch as the Tribunal has merely considered the income of the deceased on notional basis and that too at the rate of Rs.200/- per day which is very minimal, the submissions that only supervisory charges to be adopted following the ratio rendered in the judgment mentioned above is misplaced. When the Tribunal has found that the claimants have not proved that either the deceased was having any agricultural income nor that he was by himself undertaking agricultural activity, question of considering to determine the income of the deceased based on supervisory services for undertaking agricultural activity does not arise. Medical Expenses: 10. When the Tribunal has found that the claimants have not proved that either the deceased was having any agricultural income nor that he was by himself undertaking agricultural activity, question of considering to determine the income of the deceased based on supervisory services for undertaking agricultural activity does not arise. Medical Expenses: 10. Coming to the second aspect of allowing the claim of medical expenses, the counsel would urge that inasmuch as none of the doctors who treated the deceased were examined to prove that various expenses incurred much less as claimed under Exs.A10, A13 and A14, the Tribunal ought not have allowed the same and therefore, seeks to disallow. Ex.A10 is the final bill issued by Columbia Asia Hospital for Rs.18,68,389/-, Ex.A12 is the final bill issued by I-AIM Health Care Centre, Bangalore, for Rs.18,966/-, Ex.A14 is also bill issued by Columbia Asia Hospital for Rs.76,261/- and Ex.A13 is the discharge summary card issued by I-AIM Health Care Centre, Bangalore. P.W.1, wife of deceased who was all through attending medical needs of deceased spoke about the medical treatment and also expenses incurred thereon and in fact, no suggestion was given to her in the cross-examination denying the medical bills. P.W.4, Finance Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, spoke about the treatment being given to the deceased and also expenditure incurred. The Tribunal on appreciation of the above evidence has come to conclusion that claimants have spent aforesaid amounts as claimed under the bills and the same to be genuine and allowed medical expenses for Rs.19,63,616/-. We have also gone through the above referred documents and the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 4 and are satisfied that the medical expenses claimed are sufficiently supported with enough evidence and find no reason to disbelieve the same. Though the counsel for Corporation contended that none of the doctors who have given treatment were examined, nothing contra has been elicited during the cross- examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4. In particular, P.W.4 who was Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, where substantial part of medical expenses was incurred clearly spoke about the treatment and expenses incurred, therefore, this evidence itself is sufficient to come to conclusion that the expenses incurred were genuine, and mere non-examination of any of the doctors in this regard would be fatal to the claim, therefore, does not call for any interference. Future Prospects: 11. Future Prospects: 11. Learned counsel for the Corporation rightly contended that future prospects should not have been considered at the rate of 50% as the deceased was aged 39 years, therefore, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2), as he was self-employed and below the age of 40 years, is entitled for an addition of 40%. Conventional Heads: 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards consortium. However, in view of the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2), the claimants are entitled for Consortium, Loss of Estate and funeral expenses only as detailed under. Interest: 13. Coming to the contention of the claimants that the Tribunal has granted interest @7.5% per annum, which is meager and in view of various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for interest @9% per annum is concerned, the Apex Court in Malarvizhi and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others , [ (2020) 4 SCC 228 ] and Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others , [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682] had granted interest @9% per annum, respectively following those judgments, the interest is awarded @9% from the date of the claim petition till realization. 14. Considering the above, the claimants are entitled for compensation as stated below: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- 2. Future Prospects (at the age of 39 years) Rs.28,800/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs.1,00,800/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Rs.25,200/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.75,600/- 5. Multiplier of 15 for the age of 39 years 15 x Rs.75,600/- = Rs.11,34,000/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.19,63,616/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium (5 claimants) Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.33,75,916/- Rounded to Rs.33,75,920/- 15. In the result, MACMA No.1995 of 2016 is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.32,38,620/- to Rs.33,75,920/- with an interest at 9% per annum and consequently, MACMA No.2044 of 2016 is dismissed. This Court while admitting the appeals granted interim stay of all further proceedings on the condition of depositing 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest besides depositing the entire costs. This Court while admitting the appeals granted interim stay of all further proceedings on the condition of depositing 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest besides depositing the entire costs. Therefore, it is made clear that if the respondent Corporation already deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in pursuance of the interim orders dated 19.07.2016 granted by this Court in MACMA No.2044 of 2016, the remaining amount and the enhanced amount now awarded with interest accrued thereon shall be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw their proportionate share along with interest accrued thereon in the following manner. In all, claimants 1 and 2 are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each with interest accrued thereon, claimant No.3, who is the wife of the deceased, is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon and claimants 4 and 5, who are the children of the deceased, are entitled for an amount of Rs.6,87,960/- each with interest accrued thereon. The costs throughout is awarded in favour of the claimants. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.