JUDGMENT : 1. Claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one K. Kamalakar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), his mother and elder brother filed M.V.O.P.No.266 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short “the MACT”) invoking Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Feeling aggrieved by granting a compensation of only Rs.2,82,000/-, the present appeal is filed praying for enhancement. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.GJ 19 T 3235 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company / insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the tipper bearing Registration No.KA 32 1540 (hereinafter referred to as “the stationed vehicle”). Respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company / insurer of the stationed vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, with reference to their status before the learned MACT under the impugned proceedings. 4. Owners of both vehicles remained ex parte. Both the Insurance Companies contested. Learned MACT dismissed the case against the owner and Insurance Company of stationed vehicle. There is no cross appeal by the Insurance Company of offending vehicle. Case of claimants: 5. Deceased was hale and healthy aged about 22 years working as driver having valid driving licence for driving Heavy Goods Vehicle and was getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.250/-. He was contributing his entire salary to the family necessities by utilizing batta for his sustenance. 6(i). On the fateful date 17.02.2009 at about 04:30 A.M. deceased was driving the offending vehicle coming from West Bengal to Gudiyatham with a load of food grains along with a cleaner Y. Dwarakanatha Naidu. When they were near Anjaneyaswamy Temple at Kadiyapulanka, due to heavy fog and inspite of lights of the lorry etc. vehicles coming in opposite direction were not properly visible. While so, the stationed vehicle (truck / tipper) was parked on the road side without proper indicator lights etc. and the deceased was unable to control the lorry, dashed against the stationed vehicle on its backside. Due to such impact and accident, front side portion of the offending vehicle jammed into the stationed vehicle resulting in gruesome accident. In the accident deceased and cleaner of the lorry / offending vehicle died on spot in the course of their employment. 6(ii). Due to such impact and accident, front side portion of the offending vehicle jammed into the stationed vehicle resulting in gruesome accident. In the accident deceased and cleaner of the lorry / offending vehicle died on spot in the course of their employment. 6(ii). On the report of V.R.O. Kadiyupulanka Village, a case in Crime No.32 of 2009 was registered in Kadiyam Police Station of East Godavari District for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the deceased Kamalakar. But, since he died, the case was closed as abated. 6(iii). For shifting of dead body, cremation and all other purposes, the claimants sustained huge expenditure and they have lost valuable financial and all sources of support of the deceased. Claimant No.1 being suffering ill health and was dependent on the deceased. Claimant No.1 being mother, aged and home maker dependent on the deceased. Hence, both claimants are entitled for just compensation. Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance company of the offending vehicle: 7. Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of deceased in occurrence of accident, age, occupation, income of deceased and dependency of the claimants including valid and effective driving licence of the deceased. The involvement of offending vehicle is incorrect. Since there was self negligence on the part of the driver of Respondent No.1, the insurance company is not liable. There was negligence on the part of the driver engaged by Respondent No.3 for the stationed vehicle also. The liability, if any, shall be as that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 alone. Case of Respondent No.4: 8. Petitioners allegations are incorrect; averments in the FIR are very clear that the deceased drove the offending vehicle with high speed and dashed the parked lorry of Respondent No.3. Therefore, he is responsible for the accident and the concerned police after due investigation, registered the FIR and closed the case as abated. Therefore, Respondent No.4 is only a formal party and not liable to pay anything. Allegations contra as to parking of the stationed vehicle without providing proper indications etc., are all false. Both Respondent Nos.2 and 4 / Insurance Companies claimed that quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 9. On the strength of pleadings, the learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: (I). Allegations contra as to parking of the stationed vehicle without providing proper indications etc., are all false. Both Respondent Nos.2 and 4 / Insurance Companies claimed that quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 9. On the strength of pleadings, the learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: (I). Whether the accident in question arose out of the use of the motor vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.GJ 19 T 3235? (II). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (III). To what relief? 10. Evidence of before the learned MACT Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Hamma@Hamsamma P.W.2: T. Murali R.W.1: U. Bharani Kumar Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R Ex.A2: Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A3: Certified copy of P.M. Certificate Ex.A4: Driving Licence of K. Kamalakar On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy. On behalf of Respondents. Findings of the learned MACT: 11. To prove the accident and involvement / use of offending vehicle the claimants relied on evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A4. PW.1 referred about the accident details and involvement of the offending vehicle etc. The case was registered vide Crime No.32 of 2009 against the deceased. PW.1 is not an eye witness. Hence, her evidence cannot be accepted in toto. The documentary evidence Ex.A1-FIR, reveals about the complaint of Village Revenue Officer, Kadiyapulanka Village and registration of crime vide Crime No.32 of 2009. Ex.A2 is the inquest report, wherein the negligence of the deceased / driver of the offending vehicle is mentioned. RW.1 stated about the FIR and attributed negligence to the stationed vehicle. Evidence of RW.1 cannot be accepted. (i). However, in view of contents of Ex.A1-FIR, inquest report, use of lorry / offending vehicle is fit to be accepted and the stationed vehicle was not in use. (ii). The claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.250/- and they spent Rs.25,000/- for transportation of the dead body. But, the same is not completely convincing. (iii). PW.2 is said to be a driver of some other lorry owned by one Mani Reddy stated that deceased was working as driver and engaged in poultry business and they were receiving Rs.5,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.100/- about six years back. But, the same is not completely convincing. (iii). PW.2 is said to be a driver of some other lorry owned by one Mani Reddy stated that deceased was working as driver and engaged in poultry business and they were receiving Rs.5,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.100/- about six years back. Since two years prior to death, deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- for month besides batta of Rs.250/- per day. Since the claimants did not file any proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- for month and batta of Rs.250/- per day, the same is not acceptable but notionally his income is acceptable per Rs.3,000/- per month and 50% of the same is fit to be deducted as the deceased is unmarried. Age of mother is to be taken into consideration. Whereby for the age group 41-45 years, the multiplier 14'is applicable. Then the loss of dependency come to Rs.2,52,000/-. Claimants are entitled for transportation of dead body, funeral expenses and loss of estate and in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,82,000/-. Violations of conditions of Policy are not proved by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 being the insurer, they are liable to pay to the compensation. Scope of the appeal: 12. There is no appeal by the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company. Since the claim against Respondent No.3 and 4 dismissed, they are not before this Court. Since there is no appeal by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle, their liability and liability if any of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are out of the scope of appeal. Even the accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2 insurance company and subsistence of the same, violation of policy conditions and entitlement of claimants for the compensation are all out of the scope of the appeal. The only point fits within the scope of appeal is examining just and adequate nature of compensation awarded by the learned MACT and what shall be just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are : (1). What is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.? 13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are : (1). What is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.? (2). Whether the compensation awarded by the leaned MACT in a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.7,00,000/- is just and reasonable or require any interference, if so on what grounds and to which extent and what shall be liability of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.? (3). What is the result of the appeal? Arguments in appeal: For appellant-claimant(s): 14(i) Age of deceased should have been considering for adoption of multiplier instead of his mother. (ii) Taking notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month for a driver of the heavy vehicle is an error. (iii) Evidence of PW.1 and 2 should have been considered in taking the income. (iv). In respect of private employment like driver of lorry expecting documentary proof for income is not a correct approach. (v) Awarding of compensation under all heads is not considered and quantification and calculation of compensation is not correctly done by the learned MACT. For Respondent Insurance Company: 15(i) claim is under Section 163-A. (ii) There are restrictions for taking income and fixation of compensation. (iii) Maximum income contemplated is Rs.40,000/- per annum. (iv). The compensation claimed and already awarded is excessive. Point Nos.1 and 2: Precedential Guidance and legal position: 16. 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 directing adoption of 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. 16(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. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is 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. 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 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 two years in Pranay Sethi’s case. 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. 19. The claim in the present case is laid invoking Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act which suggests for adoption of II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act in the process of quantifying the compensation. The relevant factors to be considered are: (i). Adoption of annual income with reference to age of the deceased and multiplier mentioned therein. Even the compensation part is also specifically mentioned in II schedule in thousands. It is further mentioned that 1/3rd of the income shall be reduced towards personal expenses of the deceased. Towards general damages for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate, medical expenditure amounts mentioned therein shall be granted. Even the compensation part is also specifically mentioned in II schedule in thousands. It is further mentioned that 1/3rd of the income shall be reduced towards personal expenses of the deceased. Towards general damages for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate, medical expenditure amounts mentioned therein shall be granted. The claim made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act permits awarding and quantification of compensation as per the II schedule, the amount mentioned under each head are as follows: 3.General Damage(in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensations outlined above: (i) Funeral expenses -- Rs. 2,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse -- Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate -- Rs. 2,500/- (iv) Medical Expenses actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding -- Rs. 15,000/- 20. This schedule was inserted pursuant to Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while amending Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. With regard to adding of future prospects taking note of notional income, necessity to consider more income than what is mentioned in the table contemplated in terms of Section 163-A and awarding compensation under the conventional heads etc., Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Kurvan Ansari Alias Kuran Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another , [ (2022) 1 SCC 317 ] , discussed the legal position with reference to earlier directions of the Apex Court in the context of considering a claim of a minor boy (non earning group) and adherence to cap of Rs.15000/- per annum as the income of the deceased. Relevant observations are made in paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the judgment as to non-binding nature of caps fixed under Section 163-A and necessity to take increase notional income by taking note of inflation and devolution of rupee and increase cost of living. The observations are as follows: 12. In the judgment in Puttamma [Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 574] , this Court has observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule II in view of Section 163- A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directions were issued to the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to Schedule II keeping in mind the present cost of living. In the said judgment, till such amendments are made, directions were issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of Rs 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for the non-earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old. 13. In R.K. Malik [R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1265] also, this Court has observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs 15,000 per annum should be enhanced and increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since 14-11-1994. In Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] where the deceased was a ten-year-old child, this Court has fixed his notional income at Rs 30,000 per annum. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 6-9- 2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs 15,000 per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable. 15. In view of the judgments in Puttamma [Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 574] , R.K. Malik [R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1265] and Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , we are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the same, the judgment in Rajendra Singh [Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. In view of the same, the judgment in Rajendra Singh [Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 256 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 99 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 134] relied on by the learned counsel for Respondent 2 insurance company would not render any assistance to the case of the insurance company. 21. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi vs . Nunu Chand mahto alias Nemchand Mahto & Others , [ 2023 (1) SCC 204 ] , while referring to Kurvan Ansari Alias Kuran Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another case adopted more income than fixed in the II schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act in a case filed in terms of Section 163-A of M.V.Act, at para Nos. Nos.14 and 15 of the judgment. 22. In view of the legal position and precedential guidance the following points will emerge: (i). Even in claims under Section 163-A the caps contemplated under section 163-A as to adopting the income at particular scale with reference to II schedule to Motor Vehicles Act can be deviated if the circumstances justify. (ii). Even in respect of claimants under Section 163-A awarding compensation under the heads loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. under the heads of general damages is permissible beyond the caps fixed in II schedule taking aide of the scales adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (iii). It is also relevant to note that after amendments Motor Vehicles Act, 2019 under Act No.32 of 2019 provision Section 163-A is omitted. Consequently II Schedule is also omitted by Act No.32 of 2019. However, applicability of the same to the pending matters and earlier causes of action is a different aspect. (iv). Motor Vehicles Act being social welfare in nature and intention being beneficial and as there are earlier directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to take appropriate call by the legislature, it can be deemed that the limitation and caps contemplated under Section 163-A will not have any conspicuous significance in quantification and awarding just compensation where the claimants are entitled for the same in the facts and circumstances of such case. (v) However, we should keep in view of the basic concept of no fault liability contemplated under Section 163-A in calculation of the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. (vi). (v) However, we should keep in view of the basic concept of no fault liability contemplated under Section 163-A in calculation of the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. (vi). In respect of general damages referred in II Schedule like funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, transport expenses etc., it is clear that strict adherence to caps in Schedule II will result in defeating the objective and even the purpose of law when the amounts fixed are seen. 23. The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the process of redress and reparation should focus on providing adequate compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing compensation to vicitm should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims for compensation from victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation. Analysis of evidence and quantification of compensation: 24. Deceased was driving the heavy transport vehicle at relevant time. Absence of proper driving licence etc. are not proved. PW.2 stated about the employment of deceased as the driver of heavy vehicle and also about the previous earnings etc. The accident and the death are of the year 2009. Driving licence of the deceased is marked as Ex.A4. The learned MACT has accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, deducted 50% and adopted the multiplier applicable to his mother claimant No.1. 25. The legal position as to adopting multiplier applicable to the deceased is settled. Therefore, adopting the multiplier applicable to the mother of the deceased (Claimant No.1) by the learned MACT is found incorrect. Multiplier that can be adopted is 18' applicable to the age of deceased 22 years but not 12'adopted by the learned MACT which is applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased. Therefore, adopting the multiplier applicable to the mother of the deceased (Claimant No.1) by the learned MACT is found incorrect. Multiplier that can be adopted is 18' applicable to the age of deceased 22 years but not 12'adopted by the learned MACT which is applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased. Taking of income at Rs.3,000/- is also very low and income can be accepted at Rs.150/- per day which comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. 1/3 rd of the same if added towards future prospects, the same will come to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased shall be accepted at Rs.6,000/-per month which comes to Rs.72,000/- per year. Since the deceased died, unmarried and being bachelor 50% of the income can be deducted towards his personal expenses whereby his contribution of claimants will come to Rs.36,000/- per year which can be considered as multiplicand and if multiplier 18' is applied, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,48,000/-. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-; funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-; . claimant No.1 being the mother entitled for loss of filial consortium at Rs.40,000/-; towards transportation and other expenses, the entitlement of claimants at Rs.15,000/- granted by the learned MACT need not be disturbed. 26. It is necessary to note that as per the decision of a three-judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , there is no restriction that the learned MACT cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal / Court ought to award “just” compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 27. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. The Tribunal / Court ought to award “just” compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 27. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. the entitlement of claimants for the compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of dependency Rs.2,52,000/- Rs.6,48,000/- (ii) Transportation of dead body from the place of accident to native village of the deceased Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iii) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Loss of Consortium -Nil- Rs.40,000/- (v) Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- (vi) Transportation Expenses and medical expenditure etc. -Nil- -Nil- (vii) Loss of love and affection -Nil- -Nil- (viii) Damages towards clothes and articles -Nil- -Nil- Total compensation awarded Rs.2,82,000/- Rs.7,33,000/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 7.5% 28. For the reasons stated above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is arrived and awarded at Rs7,33,000/-. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.3: 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.2,82,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,33,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (ii). Claimant No.1 mother of the deceased entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-, total interest and costs which shall be inclusive of the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium. (iii). Claimant No.2 brother of the deceased is entitled for compensation at Rs.2,33,000/-. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.