JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 15.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.150 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), where under a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- was awarded as against the claim made for Rs.5,50,000/- claimants therein preferred the present appeal. 2. The Respondents herein are the Respondents before the learned MACT. 3. Case of claimants in brief is that one Devandla Rama Lingam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) while proceeding on his motor cycle between the Gurazala and Rentachintala road, near Ramakrishnapuram outskirts A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 852 (for short “the offending vehicle”) driven by its driver (Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. With the result, accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot due to head injury. 4. A case in crime No.192 of 2014 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences under 304-A of IPC and subsequently charge sheet was laid against him. 5. The deceased was hale and healthy; aged about "38" years; owning agricultural land, used to engage in cultivation of his own land in an extent of Ac.4.00 and thereby earning Rs.60,000/- per annum and he was contributing his entire income to the family. Due to his sudden death, the claimants lost all sorts of support. Hence, entitled for a just and reasonable compensation. 6. The driver of the offending vehicle is Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT remained ex parte. 7. Case of Respondent No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C in brief is that the claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and all other relevant factors for justifying the compensation claimed. 8. Negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle is also the cause for the accident. Therefore, either the negligence totally or atleast contributory negligence on the part of the deceased shall be counted in imposing and quantifying the liability. 9. 8. Negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle is also the cause for the accident. Therefore, either the negligence totally or atleast contributory negligence on the part of the deceased shall be counted in imposing and quantifying the liability. 9. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1.) Whether Devandla Rama Lingam died in the accident on 23.08.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP29Z 852? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3) To what relief? 10 . Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Devandla Siva Kumari Wife of the deceased. P.W.2: M. Sambaiah Eye witness to the accident. R.W.1: Shaik Jani Driver of the offending vehicle Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.No.192/14 of Gurazala PS., Ex.A2:Certified Copy of charge sheet in C.C.175/2014 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurazala. Ex.A3:Certified Copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector report. Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A5:Certified Copy of postmortem Report On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Rough Sketch On behalf of the Respondent(s) Findings of the learned MACT: 11. PW.1, the wife of the deceased though deposed about the accident etc. she is not an eye witness to the accident. However, PW.2-an eye witness to the accident supported all material particulars supplied by the claimants and deposed by PW.1. Crime record covered by Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Charge sheet are corroborating the version of the claimants. The evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle that, when he was going on left side and the driver of the motor cycle was negligent is of no help to the respondents. In view of the evidence of PW.2 and prosecution launched against Respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, the negligence stands proved. 12. The relationship of the claimants and the deceased is not in serious dispute. The income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, at Rs.100/- per day and the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,05,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure and other expenditure. Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.4,30,000/-. Arguments in the appeal: For the Claimants: 13. Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure and other expenditure. Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.4,30,000/-. Arguments in the appeal: For the Claimants: 13. It is submitted for the claimants that there is no appeal by the Respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C. Hence the negligence etc. aspects are out of dispute and the income taken by the learned MACT is very low. Even future prospects are not added. Therefore, the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable and it is settled law that the learned MACT awarded just and reasonable compensation, even if it is more than what is claimed by the claimants and that there is no bar for appellate Court to award more compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimants. But, in the present case, the claimants are before this appellate Court and that there is no appeal by the Respondents. For the Respondents: 14. The compensation already awarded is on high side. A.P.S.R.T.C. is a public institution. The negligence of the deceased can be considered at any stage even by this appellate Court and apportionment of negligence shall be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. In any view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere in the appeal and this appeal is fit to be dismissed with costs. 15. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 16. Since there is no appeal by the A.P.S.R.T.C. / the Respondents before the learned MACT, the occurrence of accident, death of the deceased due to the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle etc. are out of the scope of consideration in this appeal. 17. The point require consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled and the sufficiency of compensation awarded by the learned MACT. 18. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or whether any interference is necessary by way of enhancement if so, to what tune? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 19........ 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 19........ (i) Hon'ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable 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: 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. b) Adding of future prospects: 20........ (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 to be taken 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 years in Pranay Sethi’s case. 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 years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 21. 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. d) Just Compensation: 22. 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 theMotor 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. 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 bejust." 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. 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. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 23. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , (2003) 2 SCC 274 at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2019) 2 SCC 192 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2019) 2 SCC 192 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Analysis of Evidence: 24. The contention of the claimants that the deceased owning Ac.4.00 land and getting Rs.60,000/- income per annum. The arguments of the A.P.S.R.T.C. are that land holding is that there is no determinant to the income, the same land will devolve on the claimants. However, it is relevant to note that they will be loss of experienced management of the land. The evidence available on record. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-MVI Report, Ex.A4-Inquest Report and Ex.A5-Postmortem Report are all touching the accident, death of deceased etc.but they are not indicating anything about the income. 25. Evidence of PW.1 is self-serving and she is the wife. During cross- examination of PW.1, it is elicited that her husband used to do cultivation of own land and also leased land. PW.1 used to extend assistance along with father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are claimant Nos.4 and 5. 26. It was also suggested to her that the income out of the lands held is sufficient for maintenance of herself and other claimants. There can be no answer for absence of deceased and his services in respect of agricultural operations in the lands held by the family. Income taken at Rs.3,000/- by the learned MACT can be considered as very low and the same can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month inclusive of future prospects. There can be no answer for absence of deceased and his services in respect of agricultural operations in the lands held by the family. Income taken at Rs.3,000/- by the learned MACT can be considered as very low and the same can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month inclusive of future prospects. Whereby, the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/- and on deduction of 1/4 th towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the contribution comes to Rs.45,000/- and the same can be considered as multiplicand. For the age group of "38" years, multiplier applicable is "15." When the same is applied, the entitlement of claimants for compensation comes to Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.45,000/-x15). All the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium which comes to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 5) and they are also entitled for funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-. Loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under those heads is required to be enhanced. 27. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: S. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,05,000/- Rs.6,75,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: 40,000 x 5) 3. Funeral and other expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,30,000 /- Rs.9,05,000/- 28. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.9,05,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants/ the claimants, concluding that the claimants are entitled for Rs.9,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and the impugned decree and award require modification accordingly. Point No.2: 29. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of Point No.1, Point No.2 is answered as follows: In the Result: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4,30,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,05,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (iv) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / Children are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest and costs. (iii) Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,05,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (iv) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / Children are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest and costs. (v) Claimant Nos.4 and 5 / Parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each. (vi) Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (vii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / Minors are entitled to withdraw the awarded compensation amount on attaining majority subject to the necessary recognition as majors and permission by the learned MACT as per the law. (viii) The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited. (ix) Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (x) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.