JUDGMENT : 1. MACMA.No.1108 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 10.10.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –Additional District Judge, Ongole in MVOP.No.689 of 2009. 2. MACMA.No.1127 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ insurance company impugning the order dated 10.10.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –Additional District Judge, Ongole in MVOP.No.688 of 2009. 3. Heard arguments of Sri N.Rama Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/ insurance company and Sri Madala Sai Teja, the learned counsel representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri for respondents/ claimants. The subject matter accident is same and that gave rise to two death claims. The facts and law are common in both the appeals. The learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments in both the appeals together. By this common judgment, both the appeals shall be disposed of. 4. On 25.10.2009, the motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 27 G 9877 was going towards Medarametla being driven by Sri T.Sridhar alias Sridhar Babu with a pillion rider by name Sri A. Ramana Rao. A lorry bearing registration No. AP 27 W 1566 came and dashed the motorcycle on its rear side and dragged the motor cycle to a distance and stopped. Sri A.Venkata Ramana Rao died on the spot. Sri T.Sridhar Babu was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole and succumbed to the injuries and died. Cr.No.110 of 2009 was registered by Medarametla Police Station against the drier of the offending lorry. 5. The wife, mother and grandmother of the deceased A.Venkata Ramana Rao filed MVOP.No.688 of 2009 under section 166 of the MV Act praying for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 6. The wife, two minor children and the parents of the deceased Sri T.Sridhar Babu filed MVOP.No.689 of 2009 under section 166 of the MV Act praying for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 7. In both the appeals, the driver of the offending lorry was shown as R1, the owner as R2 and the insurance company as R3. 8. The driver did not choose to appear and contest, and the proceedings went ahead against him ex-parte. 9. 7. In both the appeals, the driver of the offending lorry was shown as R1, the owner as R2 and the insurance company as R3. 8. The driver did not choose to appear and contest, and the proceedings went ahead against him ex-parte. 9. The owner of the offending vehicle filed counters in both the matters stating that the fault lies with the driver of the motor cycle as he drove it in a jig jag manner and came in front of the lorry and suffered the accident and there was no rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending lorry. 10. In both maters, the insurance company filed a counter stating that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence. That the motorcyclist was negligent and suffered the accident and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 11. In MVOP.No.688 of 2009, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 26 W-1566 on 25-10-2009 at 19-00 hours, Opp. Timmanapalem S.C. Colony on N.H.5 Road? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct? 4. To what relief? The evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.B1 were placed for consideration before the claims tribunal. Respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. An attested copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B1 which covered a period from 18.11.2008 to 17.11.2009 for the offending lorry was placed for consideration by the insurance company. Therefore, it was made clear that by the time of accident, the insurance policy was in force. 12. After considering the evidence of PW.2/ eye witness to the accident and Ex.A1/ FIR in Cr.No.110 of 2009 and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police, the learned claims tribunal concluded saying that there was no fault on part of the motorcyclist and the pillion rider and the accident occurred because of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. 13. In MVOP.No.688 of 2009, after considering the evidence on record, the learned claims tribunal granted compensation under the following heads: ? 13. In MVOP.No.688 of 2009, after considering the evidence on record, the learned claims tribunal granted compensation under the following heads: ? Towards loss of dependency - Rs.6,48,000/- ? Towards funeral expenses - Rs.2,000/- ? Towards loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- ? Towards loss of consortium - Rs.5,000/- Thus, it granted compensation of Rs.6,57,500/- as against the claim for Rs.7,00,000/-. The operative portion of the award reads as below: In the result, this claim petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.5,000/-) to 1 st petitioner; Rs.2,25,000/- to 2nd petitioner and Rs.1,27,500/- to 3 rd petitioner payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit before this tribunal. Petition in respect of rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed without costs. Respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with accrued interest and costs of the petition within 30 days before this tribunal and on such deposit, petitioners shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition and the remaining 50% compensation and accrued interest thereon payable to petitioners shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank, Ongole branch for a period of three years. 14. In MVOP.No.689 of 2009, after thorough consideration of the evidence on record, the learned claims tribunal granted compensation under the following heads. ? Towards loss of dependency - Rs.7,34,400/- ? Towards funeral expenses - Rs.2,000/- ? Towards loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- ? Towards loss of consortium - Rs.5,000/- Thus, it granted compensation of Rs.7,43,900/- as against the claim for Rs.8,00,000/-. The compensation was apportioned among the claimants and the award was passed in the following terms. In the result, this claim petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) to 1 st petitioner; Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the petitioners 2 and 3; Rs.38,900/- to 4 th petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit before this tribunal. Petition in respect of rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed without costs. Petition in respect of rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed without costs. Respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with accrued interest and costs of the petition within 30 days before this tribunal and on such deposit, petitioners 1, 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw 50% of the said compensation amount and accrued interest thereon together with costs of the petition payable to them. The remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to petitioners 1, 4 and 5 shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank, Ongole for a period of three years. The entire compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to petitioner 2 and 3 shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank, Ongole branch till they attains the age of majority. 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw costs of this petition payable to petitioners 2 and 3. 1 st petitioner is also entitled to receive annual accrued interest on the amount deposited in the name of petitioners 2 and 3 every year for their maintenance 15. Assailing the award in MVOP.No.688 of 2009, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.1127 of 2012. Assailing the award in MVOP.No.689 of 2009, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.1108 of 2012. Both the appeals are filed under section 173 of the MV Act . 16. For the appellant/ insurance company, the grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are that ? When the annual income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/-, schedule II of the MV Act cannot be applied. ? Claims tribunal took the income of the deceased at higher level though the evidence did not support it ? The wrong multiplier was applied by the claims tribunal ? Awarding 9% interest per annum was an error and it ought to have awarded only 6% interest per annum 17. Learned counsel for claimants in MVOP.689 of 2012 against MACMA.No.1108 of 2012 contended that the learned claims tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation as it failed to consider future prospects at 40% and failed to grant adequate compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The learned counsel placed on record a calculation memo and prayed to grant Rs.13,22,420/- as compensation. The learned counsel cited a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Suseelamma, [2023 SCC Online AP 1725] . The learned counsel placed on record a calculation memo and prayed to grant Rs.13,22,420/- as compensation. The learned counsel cited a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Suseelamma, [2023 SCC Online AP 1725] . The ratio in the said ruling is to the effect that even if the claimants did not prefer appeal, in the event an appeal is preferred by the insurance company or the owner of the offending vehicle, the claimants were entitled to pray for just compensation and the court is duty bound to grant just compensation and therefore, the claimants without preferring an appeal could pray and the court could grant enhanced compensation. The principle of law laid down by this court in the above cited ruling is not disputed by the learned counsel for appellants. However, the learned counsel for appellant/insurance company contends that such claims of claimants cannot be considered since in the present appeal, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicles were not notified about the appeal and in their absence, enhanced claims cannot be granted. 18. The point that falls for consideration is “What could be considered as “just compensation” and whether the impugned awards either granted more compensation than what was just or granted lesser compensation than was just requiring interference of this Court?” Point: - 19. The case concerning death of Sri A.Venkata Ramana Rao in MVOP.No.688 of 2009 against MACMA.No.1127 of 2012. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the deceased was owner of lorry bearing registration No. ADW 1206 and by maintaining it, he earned Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife of the deceased/ PW.1 was asked about this aspect of the matter. She stated that she had no idea about the monthly income of her husband and she did not possess any documents whatsoever disclosing the income of the deceased husband. It was in such circumstances, the claims tribunal stated that the deceased being owner of the lorry could be stated to be earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Before the claims tribunal, the appellant/insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence disputing the fact of ownership of the lorry by the deceased and his earnings of at least Rs.4,500/- per month on that lorry. Before the claims tribunal, the appellant/insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence disputing the fact of ownership of the lorry by the deceased and his earnings of at least Rs.4,500/- per month on that lorry. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the learned claims tribunal assessed the income at higher level cannot be accepted as correct. Coming to the assertion of the claimants that his future prospects were not considered by the claims tribunal, it is true the claims tribunal did not advert to future prospects of the deceased. In the opinion of this court, the contention of claimants to consider future prospects does not apply to the case at hand. The evidence on record indicated that the deceased was owning the lorry which lorry remained with the legal representatives on the death of the deceased. What the deceased was doing with this lorry during his lifetime was only maintaining it and earning money. Thus, it was loss of supervision that occurred on his death. Though the claims tribunal did not advert to it in specific terms, it could be well said that it is only the value of supervisory services of the deceased that were to be considered and Rs.4,500/- held by the claims tribunal has to be read as value of the supervisory services of the deceased. Viewed from that angle, there was no possibility of adding an input of future prospects. In the usual course, the tribunals notionally assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- when income was not demonstrated through tangible evidence. In the case at hand, the learned claims tribunal considered it at Rs.4,500/-. In the opinion of this court that would take care of all the anxieties of the claimants concerning future prospects. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for claimants that towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, the amounts awarded by the claims tribunal are not in accordance with law. This contention must be accepted. In National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , their Lordships of the Hon’ble of the Supreme Court of India held that under the conventional heads, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses shall be granted. Therefore, under those three conventional heads, Rs.70,000/- is to be granted. Therefore, under those three conventional heads, Rs.70,000/- is to be granted. In the present case, the claims tribunal granted only Rs.9,500/- (2,000+2,500+5,000). Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.60,500/- is granted. The rate of interest granted by the claims tribunal is questioned by the learned counsel for insurance company. The impugned award indicates 9% interest from the date of the petition. According to the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, it ought to have been only 6% interest. Therefore, it is required to see Section 171 of the MV Act which reads as below. 171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed .—Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 21. Since the above provision has not prescribed the rate of interest and conferred jurisdiction of the tribunal as well as the courts to prescribe appropriate interests, a consistent view has been taken as seen from the precedent that the award of interest should be at such rate which normally nationalized banks offer to the general public. The claim petition was filed in the year 2009. The claims tribunal prescribe noticing the rate of interest prevalent by then and provided 9% interest per annum. Insurance company in this appeal failed to show anything contrary to it. Therefore, the rate of interest is found in accordance with law. 22. The case concerning death of Sri Tummala Sridhar @ Sridhar Babu in MVOP.No.689 of 2009 against MACMA.No.1108 of 2012. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the deceased was owner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 07 TT 1229 and by maintaining it, he earned Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife of the deceased/ PW.1 was asked about this aspect of the matter. She stated that she had no idea about the monthly income of her husband and she did not possess any documents whatsoever disclosing the income of the deceased husband. It was in such circumstances, the claims tribunal stated that the deceased being owner of the lorry could be stated to be earning Rs.5,100/- per month. She stated that she had no idea about the monthly income of her husband and she did not possess any documents whatsoever disclosing the income of the deceased husband. It was in such circumstances, the claims tribunal stated that the deceased being owner of the lorry could be stated to be earning Rs.5,100/- per month. Before the claims tribunal, the appellant/insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence disputing the fact about ownership of the lorry by the deceased and his earnings of at least Rs.5,100/- per month on that lorry. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the learned claims tribunal assessed the income at higher level cannot be accepted as correct. Coming to the assertion of the claimants that his future prospects were not considered by the claims tribunal, it is true the claims tribunal did not advert to future prospects of the deceased. In the opinion of this court, the contention of claimants to consider future prospects may not strictly apply to the case at hand. The evidence on record indicated that the deceased was owning the lorry which lorry remained with the legal representatives on the death of the deceased. What the deceased was doing with this lorry during his lifetime was only maintaining it and earning money. Thus, it was loss of supervision that occurred on his death. Though the claims tribunal did not advert to it in specific terms, it could be well said that it is only the value of supervisory services of the deceased that were to be considered and Rs.5,100/- held by the claims tribunal has to be read as value of the supervisory services of the deceased. Viewed from that angle, there was no possibility of adding an input of future prospects. In the usual course, the tribunals notionally assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- when income was not demonstrated through tangible evidence. In the case at hand, the learned claims tribunal considered it at Rs.5.100/- per month. In the opinion of this court that would take care of all the anxieties of the claimants concerning future prospects. 23. The contention of the learned counsel for claimants that towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, the amounts awarded by the claims tribunal are not in accordance with law. This contention must be accepted. In the opinion of this court that would take care of all the anxieties of the claimants concerning future prospects. 23. The contention of the learned counsel for claimants that towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, the amounts awarded by the claims tribunal are not in accordance with law. This contention must be accepted. In National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , their Lordships of the Hon’ble of the Supreme Court of India held that under the conventional heads, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses shall be granted. Therefore, under those three conventional heads, Rs.70,000/- is to be granted. In the present case, the claims tribunal granted only Rs.9,500/- (2,000+2,500+5,000). Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.60,500/- is granted. The rate of interest granted by the claims tribunal is questioned by the learned counsel for insurance company. The impugned award indicates 9% interest per annum from the date of petition. According to the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, it ought to have been only 6% interest. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to Section 171 of the MV Act which reads as below. 171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed .—Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 24. Since the above provision has not prescribed the rate of interest and conferred jurisdiction on the tribunal as well as the courts to prescribe appropriate interests, a consistent view has been taken by the Courts that the award of interest should be at such rate which normally nationalized banks offer to the general public. The claim petition was filed in the year 2009. The claims tribunal provided the rate of interest prevalent by then and granted 9% interest per annum. The Insurance company in this appeal failed to show anything contrary to it. Therefore, the rate of interest is held to be in accordance with law. 25. In the result, MACMA.No.1127 of 2012 is dismissed. The claims tribunal provided the rate of interest prevalent by then and granted 9% interest per annum. The Insurance company in this appeal failed to show anything contrary to it. Therefore, the rate of interest is held to be in accordance with law. 25. In the result, MACMA.No.1127 of 2012 is dismissed. Order dated 10.10.2011 in MVOPNo.688 of 2009 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Ongole is modified to the extent of enhancing the compensation awarded from Rs.6,57,500/- to Rs.7,18,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants shall pay the requisite additional court fee before the claims tribunal. Appellant herein/ The oriental Insurance Company Limited and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Appellant/ Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation along with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of this order before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to the amounts paid if any. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 26. In the result, MACMA.No.1108 of 2012 is dismissed. Order dated 10.10.2011 in MVOPNo.689 of 2009 of learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Ongole is modified to the extent of enhancing the compensation awarded from Rs.7,43,900/- to Rs.8,04,400/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants shall pay the requisite additional court fee before the claims tribunal. Appellant herein/ The oriental Insurance Company Limited and respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Appellant/ Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation along with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of this order before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to the amounts paid if any. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.