JUDGMENT : I. Introductory:- 1. Questioning sustainability of three awards and decrees dated 24.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.652, 653 and 654 of 2013 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District judge, Guntur (for short “the MACT”), three appeals are filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, arrayed as Respondent No.2 in all the three M.V.O.Ps., now under consideration and being disposed of under this common judgment. 2. Details of case numbers, compensation claimed by the claimants and the amount awarded by the learned MACT are as follows: M.V.O.P. No. M.A.C.M.A. No. Claimants & Relationship with Deceased Respondents Name of the deceased. Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded (in Rs.) 652 of 2013 153 of 2017 1. Y.Arogyam 2. Y.Rama Lakshmamma 3. Y.Anil (Wife & Children of Deceased) 1. Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) Y.Venkateswarlu 4,00,00/- 3,21,500/- @7.5% p.a. 653 of 2013 140 of 2017 Y. Arogyam (Mother of Deceased) 1.Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) Y. Yedukondalu 4,00,00/- 3,59,000/- @7.5% p.a. 654 of 2013 127 of 2017 1. G. Pichamma 2. G.Koteswari (Wife & Daughter of deceased) 1. Tahir Gurakasar(owner of lorry) 2. National Insurance Company (Appellant) Gudipati Kotaiah 5,00,00/- 4,10,000/- @7.5% p.a. 3. In all the appeals, Insurance Company is the appellant. Claimants and owner of the vehicle are arrayed as Respondents. The owner remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Liability was imposed on the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally along with the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 4. Heard both sides at length. Perused the record. II. The contentions common in all the three cases are as follows Case of claimants: 5(i). Deceased persons and some others along with their mastry / contractor went to Nagireddypalem for loading Papaya fruits in a lorry bearing Registration No.HR 28G 0620 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) at about 8:00 A.M. After completing the loading work, while they were returning in the same lorry and when the lorry reached near Ramabhadrapuram Village at about 10:00 AM, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control of the same. Thereby the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased and other coolies engaged for loading etc., purposes fell down under the load. Four deaths occurred apart from injuries to some others. (ii). Thereby the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased and other coolies engaged for loading etc., purposes fell down under the load. Four deaths occurred apart from injuries to some others. (ii). Claimants are legal heirs and dependents on the income of the deceased. They lost valuable support of deceased due to sudden demise.Hence, they are entitled for compensation claimed in their respective petitions. (iii) A case in Crime No.26 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Case of Insurance Company: 6. The Insurance Company / Respondent No.2 in all the three M.V.O.Ps pleaded that, respective claimants in all the claim petitions shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation of deceased etc. relevant aspects. Specific contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased and the others were not supposed to travel in the lorry even though coolies and they are not engaged by the owner of the lorry / offending vehicle and that they are unauthorized passengers. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. III. Issues before the learned MACT: 7. On the strength of pleadings, the identical issues were framed in all the three claim petitions. They are as follows: M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2013 M.V.O.P.No.653 of 2013 M.V.O.P.No.654 of 2013 3 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 28G 0620 (Lorry) on 04.05.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., within the limits of Talluru P.S., of Prakasam District and caused death of the deceased(Yedduladoddi Venkateswarlu) ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount from whom? 3) To what relief? 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 28G 0620 (Lorry) on 04.05.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., within the limits of Talluru P.S., of Prakasam District and caused death of the deceased(Yedduladoddi Yedukondalu) ? 2) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount from whom? 3) To what relief? 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 28G 0620 (Lorry) on 04.05.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., within the limits of Talluru P.S., of Prakasam District and caused death of the deceased (Gudipati Kotaiah) ? 3) To what relief? 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 28G 0620 (Lorry) on 04.05.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., within the limits of Talluru P.S., of Prakasam District and caused death of the deceased (Gudipati Kotaiah) ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount from whom? 3) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Evidence in M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2013: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Yedduladoddi Arogram Claimant No.1 P.W.2: Gudipati Bala Kotaiah Eye witness to accident R.W.1: D.Ravi Kumar A.O.in Respondent No.2 Company Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R, dated 04.05.2013. copy of charge Ex.A2: Certified sheet dated 17.03.2014. copy of inquest Ex.A3: Certified report dated 04.05.2013. Certified copy Ex.A4: of Postmortem report dated 06.05.2013. Ex.A5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Certified copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2: Certified copy of Registration particulars issued by RTA Nuh(Mewat), Hariyana State. Ex.B3: Certified copy of Authorization certificate of National Permit issued by RTA of Nuh(Mewat) Hariyana State. On behalf of Respondents. 9. Evidence in M.V.O.P.No.653 of 2013: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Yedduladoddi Arogram Claimant No.1 P.W.2: Gudipati Bala Kotaiah Eye witness to accident. R.W.1: D.Ravi Kumar A.O.in Respondent No.2 Company Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R, dated 04.05.2013. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet dated 17.03.2014. Ex.A3: Certified copy of inquest report dated 04.05.2013. Ex.A4: Certified copy of Postmortem report dated 06.05.2013. Ex.A5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2: Copy of Registration particulars issued by RTA Nuh(Mewat) Hariyana State. Ex.B3: Copy of Authorization certificate of National Permit issued by RTA of Nuh(Mewat) Hariyana State. On behalf of Respondents. 10. Evidence in M.V.O.P.No.654 of 2013: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Gudipati Pitchamma Claimant No.1 P.W.2: Gudipati Bala Kotaiah Eye witness to accident. R.W.1: D.Ravi Kumar A.O.in Respondent No.2 Company Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R, dated 04.05.2013. copy of charge Ex.A2: Certified sheet dated 17.03.2014. copy of inquest Ex.A3: Certified report dated 04.05.2013. Certified copy Ex.A4: of Postmortem report dated 06.05.2013. Ex.A5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2: Copy of Registration particulars issued by RTA Nuh(Mewat), Hariyana State. copy of charge Ex.A2: Certified sheet dated 17.03.2014. copy of inquest Ex.A3: Certified report dated 04.05.2013. Certified copy Ex.A4: of Postmortem report dated 06.05.2013. Ex.A5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2: Copy of Registration particulars issued by RTA Nuh(Mewat), Hariyana State. Ex.B3: Copy of Authorization certificate of National Permit issued by RTA of Nuh(Mewat), Hariyana State. On behalf of Respondents. V. Findings of the learned MACT: 11(i). One Gudipati Bala Kotaiah is PW.2 in all the three cases and he is an eye witness to the accident. With the evidence of PW.2 and corroboration from FIR and charge sheet, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and involvement of the vehicle are proved by the claimants. (ii). The contention contra pleaded by the Insurance Company that they are several persons travelling in the vehicle etc. are not tenable. With regard to quantification of compensation, the learned MACT has taken respective age and income of the deceased in each case and calculated the compensation. (iii). With regard to contention as to unauthorized passenger taken by the Insurance Company as to coolies travelling in the vehicle learned MACT held with reference to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others, [ 2000 ACJ 1 ] that insurance policy covers the risk of the third party and does not exclude the gratuitous passenger. Further, the learned MACT has also referred that other cases i.e., judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mani alias Manik vs. Shiram and others, [ 1999 ACJ 260 ] and United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Goverdhan and others, [ 2002 ACJ 891 ] and also judgment of Madras High Court in A. Sampath vs. Pachaippan and others, [ 2002 ACJ 1519 ] etc. to support its finding that the coolies in goods vehicle are also entitled to claim compensation. Aggrieved by the awards passed in all the three cases, three appeals are filed. VI. Arguments in appeals: 12. For Appellant Insurance Company: 1. The learned MACT ought to have held that the deceased in all the cases are unauthorized passengers. 2. Gratuitous passengers are not covered by policy, findings contra are not tenable. 3. Aggrieved by the awards passed in all the three cases, three appeals are filed. VI. Arguments in appeals: 12. For Appellant Insurance Company: 1. The learned MACT ought to have held that the deceased in all the cases are unauthorized passengers. 2. Gratuitous passengers are not covered by policy, findings contra are not tenable. 3. Learned MACT ought to have considered that there were 29 passengers by the time of accident and they are unauthorizedly travelling in the vehicle and that there is violation of conditions of Insurance Policy. 4. Even if the contention that the deceased are coolies is accepted, they are travelling unauthorizedly and they are not engaged by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, they are unauthorized passengers and not entitled to claim compensation against the insurance company. 5. The judgment relied by the learned MACT in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others (1 supra) has been overruled in subsequent case viz. New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others, [5 (2003) 2 SCC 223 ] 6. Findings of learned MACT are not sustainable and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside exonerating insurance company from its liability. For Respondents/Claimants: 13. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Insurance Policy covers the risk of coolies and that loading and unloading labour are entitled to travel along with the goods. The liability notionally extends for the transit also. The findings of learned MACT as to liability are well reasoned and the learned MACT should have awarded moiré compensation as there is no legal bar to award more compensation than what claimed even in this appeal. VII. Points for consideration in the appeal(s) 14. Now the points that arise for determination in all the three appeals are: 1). Whether the pleaded accident dated 04.05.2013 occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? 2). Whether the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passengers or a coolies, for loading and unloading purposes, If so, whether the Policy does not cover the risk of loading and unloading labour? 3) Whether the claimants in respective M.V.O.P.'s are entitled for compensation. If so, to what quantum and what shall be the liability of the Respondent / appellant Insurance Company.? 4) What is the result of appeals in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.127, 140 and 153 of 2017? Point No.1: 15. 3) Whether the claimants in respective M.V.O.P.'s are entitled for compensation. If so, to what quantum and what shall be the liability of the Respondent / appellant Insurance Company.? 4) What is the result of appeals in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.127, 140 and 153 of 2017? Point No.1: 15. The occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle stands acceptable with the evidence of PW.2-Eye witness and corroboration from FIR, charge sheet and inquest report etc. 16. Driver of the offending vehicle is not summoned and there is no contra evidence to doubt the negligence or to accept the absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle in occurrence of pleaded accident dated 04.05.2013 found fit to be accepted. Accordingly, point framed is answered in favour of the claimants against the appellant Insurance Company. Point No.2: VIII. Precedential Guidance: 17. Coverage of risk of labour engaged for loading and unloading purposes: (i). In a case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Palani M. Samundeeswari, 2009 SCC Online Mad 1257 where the injured/ claimant travelling as coolie on tractor utilization for transportation of sugarcane and the claimant travelled by sitting on mudguard of Tractor as a coolie for the purpose connected with agricultural operations was considered. It was held that the Policy will cover the coolie also vide para Nos.5, 7 to 9. 5. It is in evidence that the claimant was travelling as a Coolie in the Tractor which was utilized for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar mills in the second respondent's Tractor. On return, after unloading, the accident took place. So, it has to be seen whether the Insurance Company is liable. 7. He also draws attention of this Court to my decision reported in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hosur v. Loganayagi and 4 others, 2009 (2) LW 953 , wherein I have followed the decision of the Supreme Court and anchored the responsibility of paying the compensation upon the Insurance Company in a case where the deceased was travelling in the Tractor, which was loaded with stones belonging to the owner of the Tractor. Ltd., Hosur v. Loganayagi and 4 others, 2009 (2) LW 953 , wherein I have followed the decision of the Supreme Court and anchored the responsibility of paying the compensation upon the Insurance Company in a case where the deceased was travelling in the Tractor, which was loaded with stones belonging to the owner of the Tractor. The stones were transported for construction of the well in agricultural lands of the vehicle owner and the deceased was employed by the owner to load and unload the stones in the Trailer of the Tractor and I have observed that while the Tractor and Trailer were being utilized for agricultural purpose, as shown in this case and the owner or his representative as load man travelled by the vehicle and in case if he sustains personal injuries or otherwise, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The operative portion of the Judgment goes thus: “13. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard and also considering the view taken by the other High Courts, this Court is of the considered opinion that while a Tractor and Trailer were be in utilised for agricultural purposes as shown in this case and if the owner or his representative as load-man, travelled by the vehicle and in case he got personal injury or otherwise, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. It is held as such.” 9. Bearing in mind the decision of this Court and other High Courts and following principles laid down in the Apex Court decision, it is held that since the deceased was travelling by the Tractor, even though, he was sitting in the mudguard, for the personal injuries received by him, the Insurance Company has to be held liable. To support this view of this Court, takes aid of the oral account of the R.W.1 also who is a Junior Assistant in Insurance Company who says in his cross-examination that the policy issued for the first respondent is a package policy, that if the Trailer is attached to the Tractor, the Policy will cover Coolie also and if any Coolie travels in the Tractor sustains injuries, then the Policy would cover them also. Hence, the irresistible conclusion would be that the Insurance Company has to be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. (ii). Hence, the irresistible conclusion would be that the Insurance Company has to be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. (ii). In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mattedu Manikyam and others, [1999 SCC Online AP 685] the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a case of insurance policy allowing six labourers to travel in the tractor-trailor and only when three labourers were travelling found that the insurer is the labourer. It was also a case where the labourer travelled on the mudguard of the tractor along with goods for unloading the same. Relevant observation are made in the para 7 of the judgment which are as follows: 7. But as seen from the judgment of the Tribunal below, as per the insurance policy, six labourers are allowed to travel in the tractor-trailor, whereas, at the time of occurrence of the accident, only three labourers were travelling on the tractor-trailor, including the deceased. When the tractor comes within the definition of goods vehicle, the question of travelling on the trailor or the tractor does not arise and it does not make any difference. As is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the trailor was carrying the load of wooden logs, thus there shall be no space in the trailor to travel in it along with the goods, belonging to the owner of the vehicle, who was employer of the deceased. Thus it is clear that they have travelled on the mudguard of the tractor along with the goods for unloading the same. Therefore, it can be viewed that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the deceased travelled on the mudguard of the tractor contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not correct. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal below is perfectly in accordance with law, when premium was paid for six coolies in respect of the policy covering the tractor. (iii) In a case between Mala Veerapuram Babu and another vs. Y. Krishudu and another, [2014 SCC Online Hyd 466], High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, after referring to several judgments including National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur, [ 2004 (2) SCC 1 ,], New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others (5 supra) and New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and other (1 supra) etc, cases vide para Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment and also with reference to section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to after amendment and after referring to Indian Motor Tariff (IMT) 39 and 39-A etc., observed that the policy covers the specified risk of hamali's for loading and unloading purposes and the claim is tenable where they are travelling the goods vehicle. It was the case of the labour / Hamali's travelling in the lorry sitting on the Kadapa slabs. In this case Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh also referred to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Anjana Shyam and others, (2007) 7 SCC 445 for the proposition that where there is travel of more persons than carrying capacity, the claim can be allowed to the extent of permitted capacity and the same can be distributed among the all and directed the claimants and tribunals should follow the principle in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Anjana Shyam and Others (10 supra) case. (iv) It is relevant to note that New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others (5 supra) was a case of interpreting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to amendment in the year 1994 and interpretation of expression "any person? as to whether it would include the owner of the goods, who was earlier considered as gratuitous passenger etc. Learned counsel for insurance company relied on this judgment to contend that the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others (1 supra) case referred by the learned MACT stands overruled in view of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others (5 supra) case. However, the context of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others case and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others case are in relation to interpretation of who are all fall and come under the expression of third party and liability in respect of gratuitous passengers etc. (v). The position with regard to travel of passengers or hamali's travelled in a goods vehicle, where more premium is collected and where the policy is a package policy has been addressed in Mala Veerapuram Babu and another vs. Y. Krishudu and another (8 supra) case referred above. (v). The position with regard to travel of passengers or hamali's travelled in a goods vehicle, where more premium is collected and where the policy is a package policy has been addressed in Mala Veerapuram Babu and another vs. Y. Krishudu and another (8 supra) case referred above. Further, in view of the New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Palani M. Samundeeswari (6 supra) case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and also in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mattedu Manikyam and others (7 supra) a case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred above. It is necessary to examine what is the evidence and the nature of policy. IX. Analysis of Evidence relating to point No.2: 18. Important recitals in the Ex.B1-Insurance Policy issued by the Insurance Company relevant for appreciating the contention are as follows: Duplicate Schedule: Policy No.360400/31/13/6365000258 (Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle (Open) Policy B Package) Agent Code :196 Agent Name : SH. Umesh Prasad Agent Contact No. :98911 93967 Name of the Insured : Mr. Tahir Address of the Insured: Guraksar, Teh. Hatin, Dist. Mewat Gurgaon Pin Code: 110001 Telephone Business / Occupation : Not mentioned Period of Insurance from : 29.04.2013 at 00:00:00 to midnight of 28.04.2014 Co-Insurance Share : 100% Geographical Area : India Regd. Number : HR-28-6/0620 Engine No. : 62666464 Chassis No. : 008359 Make : TATA LPT 2515 Year of Manufacture : 2008 CC : 0 Seats /G.V.W : 25000 Net premium : 29,452 SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM (In Rs.) A: OD -BASIC 16,815.00 B: T.P. - BASIC 14,974.00 Surcharge for G.V.W 3,510.00 Compulsory PA to Owner-Cum-Driver Amount: 200000 100.00 WC to employee 3 150.00 Gross(B) : Gross OD&TP: 15,224 29,452 Net Premium: 29,452 Nil Depreciation Premium 0 Service Tax 12.36% : Rs.3,640.00 Gross(A): 14,228 Net Amount Payable: Rs.33,092.00 Minimum Premium: Rs.100 19. The Ex.B1 policy is a package policy and issued for goods carrying commercial vehicle. The vehicle is commercial vehicle as per Ex.B1 Policy and the collection of premium would reflect that WC employees are also covered. The only point that the learned counsel for Insurance Company would contend that the deceased are not hired by the owner of the vehicle and they are hired by some other persons. The vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying commercial vehicle and the policy by its nature is a package policy. The only point that the learned counsel for Insurance Company would contend that the deceased are not hired by the owner of the vehicle and they are hired by some other persons. The vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying commercial vehicle and the policy by its nature is a package policy. Further, by virtue of NMT and the collection of premium etc. covering the risk of the labour need not be doubted. Even otherwise it is not a case of Insurance Company that there was more claims of workman category than what permitted or covered by the policy. Had it been a case or contention of the Insurance Company that they are liable for limited claims, either the Tribunal or this Court may be in a position to invoke principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Anjana Shyam and Others (10 supra) case. But, no such plea or defense is there. 20. As per the evidence of RW.1, the objections are that there are 29 people are travelled are as passengers, but whereas contention of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling as the coolie along with the papaya fruits load. It is not the contention of the Insurance Company that there was no papaya fruits load. It is relevant to note that admission of RW-1 examined for insurance company that they have appointed investigator. But, Insurance Company did not file the report. Policy was in force. It was specifically suggested to him that deceased in respect of each case was a coolie and engaged for loading and unloading of papaya fruits. The suggestions given to PW.1 that 35 passengers were there at the time of accident etc. was denied. 21. PW.2 who is an eye witness to the accident stated that one mastry engaged the labour for loading and unloading papaya fruits and totally four persons died in the accident. PW.2 is also a said to be a coolie. He has denied the suggestion that he was travelling as a paid passenger. Expecting documentary evidence as to engaging labour for loading and unloading purposes as suggested by the Insurance Company is not possible in the social scenario from which the parties hail. 22. PW.2 is also a said to be a coolie. He has denied the suggestion that he was travelling as a paid passenger. Expecting documentary evidence as to engaging labour for loading and unloading purposes as suggested by the Insurance Company is not possible in the social scenario from which the parties hail. 22. Upon considering the entire evidence available on record and the legal position stated supra it is found that the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle for loading and unloading purposes of the papaya and the vehicle is a goods vehicle. Ex.B1 policy covers the risk of coolies as well in view of its nature being comprehensive / package policy and as it reflects that third person under WC are covered. The defence that the owner did not engage his labour is not forfeited by any convincing evidence. Therefore the exemption pressed into services for liability by the Insurance Company does not merit consideration. 23. Accordingly, defence relating to coverage of risk is answered concluding that the deceased referred in all these three cases are not unauthorized passengers and they were travelling as coolies for loading and unloading purposes and that the insurance policy covers the risk. Point No.2 answered accordingly. Point No.3: Quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- Precedential Guidance: 24(i). 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. (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. Final Step: 25(i). 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: 25(i). 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. 25(ii) 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.a 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. 25(iii). 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.a 25(iv). In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just?. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just?. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009)13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. 25(v) Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: (i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others, [2023 SCC Online AP 1725] in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. 25(vi). Observations made by Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (15 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others, [ (2021) 16 SCC 467 ] 25(viii). In Surekha and Others vs . Santosh and Others (16 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. 26. The relationship of the claimants with the respective deceased referred in respective cases is not in dispute. The death of deceased in respective cases due to accident is out of dispute. Therefore, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is also clear. The only point remains for consideration is just quantum of compensation to which the respective claimants are entitled. 27. Factors adopted and calculation done by the learned MACT case wise is as follows: Sl. No. Factor M.A.C.M.A.Nos./ M.V.O.P.Nos. 153 of 2017 / 652 of 2013 140 of 2017 / 653 of 2013 127 of 2017 / 654 of 2013 1. Age of the deceased 38 18 30 2. Income of the deceased accepted by the learned MACT Rs.3,000/- p.m. Rs.3,000/-p.m. Rs.3,000/-p.m. 3. Income adopted by the learned MACT for calculation Rs.2,000/- p.m. Rs.1,500/- p.m. Rs.2,000/- p.m 4. Multiplicand Rs.24,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.24,000/- 5. Multiplier 13 18 15 6. Loss of dependency Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- 28. Age of the deceased 38 18 30 2. Income of the deceased accepted by the learned MACT Rs.3,000/- p.m. Rs.3,000/-p.m. Rs.3,000/-p.m. 3. Income adopted by the learned MACT for calculation Rs.2,000/- p.m. Rs.1,500/- p.m. Rs.2,000/- p.m 4. Multiplicand Rs.24,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.24,000/- 5. Multiplier 13 18 15 6. Loss of dependency Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- 28. The contention of the appellant Insurance Company is that the learned MACT has taken the income without any basis at Rs.3,000/- per month without considering socio economic status and year of accident is 2013. Accepting income on notional basis is the only way in respect of self employed or persons like labour, where there is no direct and documentary evidence. Even if any reason, the income taken by the learned MACT at Rs.3,000/- per month in respect of each deceased is excessive, as the learned MACT failed to add future prospects at respective scales applicable in respect of each deceased, the income adopted by the learned MACT for calculating the loss of dependency and arriving at Multiplicand can be considered as the income adoptable inclusive of future prospects. The grievance of claimants is that the future prospects are not added and grievance of the appellant Insurance Company is that the income is accepted excessively without basis. To balance the interest of both parties the income adopted by the learned MACT can be accepted and adopted as inclusive of future prospects. Therefore, in respect of calculation and quantifying the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, it can be held that the quantification done is proper and need not be interfered. The contention of the appellant Insurance Company is not accepted in that regard. 29. However, quantification of compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc. require a relook in the process of awarding just and reasonable compensation as the law permits for awarding just and reasonable compensation at every stage be it a original or appellant stage. 30. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. the entitlement of claimants for the compensation in all the three cases in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows S l. No. Head Case Nos. (M.V.O.P.Nos. 30. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. the entitlement of claimants for the compensation in all the three cases in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows S l. No. Head Case Nos. (M.V.O.P.Nos. / M.A.C.M.A.Nos.) M.V.O.P.No. 652 of 2013 M.A.C.M.A. No. 153 of 2017 M.V.O.P.No. 653 of 2013 M.A.C.M.A. No.140 of 2017 M.V.O.P.No. 654 of 2013 M.A.C.M.A. No.127 of 2017 1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- Rs.3,24,000/ - Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) -Nil- Rs.40,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x2) 6. Loss of love and affection -Nil- -Nil- Rs.10,000/- -Nil- Rs.20,000/- -Nil- Total: Rs.3,21,500/- Rs.4,62,000/- Rs.3,59,000/- Rs.3,94,000/ Rs.4,10,000/- Rs.4,70,000/- 31. In view of the discussion made above claimants in respective M.V.O.Ps are entitled for compensation vide M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2013; M.V.O.P.No.653 of 2013 and M.V.O.P.No.654 of 2013 at Rs.4,62,000/-, Rs.3,94,000/- and Rs.4,70,000/- respectively and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, Point No.3 is answered accordingly. X. Result: Point No.4: 32. In the result, the three appeals are dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT in respective M.V.O.P.s is modified as follows: M.A.C.M.A.No.153 of 2017: (i). The compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2013 at Rs.3,21,500/- is modified to Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (ii). The enhancement part of the compensation shall stand allotted to the Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased, who shall be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit. (iii). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. M.A.C.M.A.No.140 of 2017: (i). The compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.653 of 2013 at Rs.3,59,000/- is modified to Rs.3,94,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (ii). Claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit. M.A.C.M.A.No.127 of 2017: (i). The compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.654 of 2013 at Rs.4,10,000/- is modified to Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (ii). The enhancement part of the compensation shall stand allotted to Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased, who shall be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.