JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 20.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.803 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”) and the appellant herein is Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the claimants and Respondent No.7 herein is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 16 TR 336 (hereinafter referred to “the offending vehicle”). 3. Claim made for Rs.8,00,000/- by the claimants was allowed-in-part, granting compensation of Rs.6,22,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of one Nagidi Venugopala Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident. Feeling aggrieved by the same, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle is insured. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as the claimants and the Respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of claimants: 5. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. 6. On the fateful day i.e. 21.05.2006 at about 14:15 hours when the deceased was going on his scooter bearing registration No. AP 5G 314 and when he reached near at 4 th Pillar of Prakasam Barrage, Vijayawada, the rider of the Pulser motorcycle / the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner from the Guntur side and dashed the deceased. With the result, the deceased sustained severe, multiple, and grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and suffered instantaneous death. 7(i). A case in Crime No.280 of 2006 was registered at I Town Police Station, Vijayawada, for the offenses under Section 304(A) of IPC, and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. 7(ii). The deceased was aged about „40? years; hale and healthy; working as a mechanic in Motors having own Mechanic Shop in the name and style of „Chakradhara Auto Works for Two-Wheeler Vehicles? and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire income to the family. Claimant No.2 was studying Engineering. 7(ii). The deceased was aged about „40? years; hale and healthy; working as a mechanic in Motors having own Mechanic Shop in the name and style of „Chakradhara Auto Works for Two-Wheeler Vehicles? and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire income to the family. Claimant No.2 was studying Engineering. Claimant No.3 was studying B.Com and Claimant No.4 was studying VI Class. Claimant Nos.1, 4 and 6 are dependents on the deceased and all the claimants suffered financial, emotional and every sort of loss on account of the untimely death of the deceased due to the motor vehicle accident which has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of rider of the motor cycle which is owned by Respondent No.1 insured with Respondent No.2. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay the just and reasonable compensation. 8. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 9. Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company filed its written statement. Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company: 10. The allegations in the claim petition are invented and incorrect. The claimants shall prove all the allegations. The offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. However, subject to terms and conditions. The policy was in force from 30.03.2006 to 29.03.2007. 11. Respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle but not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Charge sheet was laid under Section 3, read with Section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with Section 304(A) of IPC. A notice sent to Respondent No.1 requesting him to produce the driving license was left unanswered. Therefore, there is violation of conditions of policy. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The insured with Respondent No.1 failed to comply the formalities like informing the accident, forwarding the material documents etc. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable. 12. The claim made by the claimants including the rate of interest claimed are all excessive and the Insurance Company is disputing the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The negligence of the deceased shall also be considered. Age, occupation, and income of the deceased and death due to the accident shall be proved by the claimants to substantiate the claim. 13. The negligence of the deceased shall also be considered. Age, occupation, and income of the deceased and death due to the accident shall be proved by the claimants to substantiate the claim. 13. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1) Whether the deceased N. Venu Gopala Rao @ Venu died in a motor vehicle accident on 21.05.2006 at 14:15 hrs. due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle No.AP 16 TR 336? 2) If so, what is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount? 4) To what relief? 14 . Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: N. Sivaparvathi Claimant No.1 / Wife of the deceased. R.W.1: G. Chandra Sekhar Junior Legal Executive of Respondent?s Insurance Company R.W.2: K.V.V.N.V. Prasad Inspector of I Town Police Station Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A3:Attested copy of Postmortem Report. Ex.A4: Attested copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A5: Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A6: Registration certificate. Ex.A7:Receipt issued by Assistant Labour Inspector. Ex.A8: Copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A9: Identity card of 2nd petitioner. Ex.A10: Identity card of 3rd petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Letter of authorization to RW.1 Ex.B2: Insurance policy. Ex.B3: office copy of Notice issued by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1. Ex.B4: Certificate of posting Ex.B5: Postal Receipt. Ex.B6:O/c. Notice Issued by Respondent No.2 to 1 Ex.B7: Postal receipt. Ex.B8: Returned Registered post cover. Ex.X1: Attested copy of Charge sheet. On behalf of the Respondents Findings of the learned MACT: On negligence: 15(i). During cross examination of PW.1 done on behalf of the Respondent- Insurance Company, the manner of accident, death of deceased due to accident are not seriously disputed. Respondent No.1 is the proper person to speak but remained ex parte. Insurance company did not take any steps to examine Respondent No.1. 15(ii). Material on record is sufficient to infer the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the issue touching the negligence is answered in favour of the claimants. On the age and occupation of the deceased: 15(iii) Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Postmortem Report are indicating the age of the deceased is „39? years. 15(ii). Material on record is sufficient to infer the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the issue touching the negligence is answered in favour of the claimants. On the age and occupation of the deceased: 15(iii) Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Postmortem Report are indicating the age of the deceased is „39? years. But, the petitioners are contending that the age of the deceased is „40? years. Therefore, the age of „40? years is believed. As per Ex.A7 certificate/receipt issued by the Assistant Labour Inspector, the deceased was running a mechanical shop which supports the contention of the claimants. On Quantum of compensation: 16. The notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.150/- per day, then the income come to Rs.4,500/- per month. Annual income comes to Rs.54,000/-. If 1/4 th is deducted towards personal expenditure, loss of dependency comes to Rs.40,500/-. Multiplier applicable is „15?. Then, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,07,500/-(Rs.40,500/- x 15). Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards consortium. In all entitlement comes to Rs.6,22,500/-. With regard to Driving Licence: 17. Notices issued under Ex.B3 and Ex.B6 but they are not received. Ex.B8 is the registered cover. Proper person to prove absence of driving licence is not examined by RW.2 / the investigating officer. The burden to prove the contents of charge sheet lies on the concerned and charge sheet is not a substantive piece of evidence. Right person to speak about the possessing driving licence is Respondent No.1. He remained ex parte. No steps are taken to examine him. Therefore, Respondent No.2 failed to establish the defence. The authorities relied on by Respondent No.2 are relating to a situation of the Insurance Company establishing the defence. But, in the present case, the Insurance Company failed to establish the absence of driving licence. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the claimants. 18. On Liability: (i). The policy was in force. (ii). Violations are not proved. (iii). Therefore the liability is jointly and severally. Arguments in the appeal: 19. For the Appellant: (i). But, in the present case, the Insurance Company failed to establish the absence of driving licence. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the claimants. 18. On Liability: (i). The policy was in force. (ii). Violations are not proved. (iii). Therefore the liability is jointly and severally. Arguments in the appeal: 19. For the Appellant: (i). The learned MACT ought to have held that Respondent (appellant- Insurance Company) discharged its burden by examine RW.1 and RW.2 and by producing Ex.B1 to B8 documents and Ex.X1 documents and that there is breach of conditions of policy-Ex.B2 by Respondent No.1 and that Respondent No.2 (appellant-Insurance Company) is not liable to pay any compensation. (ii). The learned MACT ought to have drawn adverse inference against Respondent No. 1. (iii). The learned MACT ought to have noticed that the Insurance Company has pleaded and proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (iv). The learned MACT erred in estimating and taking the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.4,500/- without valid material in support of the same. (v). The appeal is fit to be allowed and claim is liable to be dismissed against the Insurance Company. 20. For the claimants: (i). The findings of the learned MACT as to negligence, entitlement of claimants for compensation, failure of the Insurance Company to prove the absence of driving licence and violations and imposing liability on Insurance Company are all well-reasoned fit to be confirmed. (ii). However, the learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the income of deceased and ought to have awarded more compensation than what was claimed taking note of the presidential guidance as to awarding just compensation and this appellate Court has the power to award just and reasonable compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimants. 21. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 22. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 21.05.2006 is the result of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum? 3) Whether the violation of conditions of policy particularly absence of driving licence to Respondent No.1 rider of the offending vehicle is proved and whether Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company (appellant) is liable to pay compensation? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum? 3) Whether the violation of conditions of policy particularly absence of driving licence to Respondent No.1 rider of the offending vehicle is proved and whether Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company (appellant) is liable to pay compensation? 4) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT and liability imposed under the impugned decree and judgment dated20.03.2012 are sustainable or whether any interference is necessary, if so, on what grounds and to which extent? 5) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Statutory and Precedential Guidance: 23(i). It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows: 176. Power of State Government to make rules. — A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications; (b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter; (c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; (d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and (e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed. 23(ii). Chapter „11? of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties, method of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of issues, judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim petitions applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim basis to award the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows: Rule 476: Application for claim :- (1) Every application in the case of claim under Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; shall be made in Form CWF (Claim Without Fault); Provided that the application shall also be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the petitioner has not filed any other claim petition regarding the same cause of action or the same accident in the same Tribunal or any other Tribunal to his/her knowledge. (2) Fees:- Every applicant along with application for claim under Chapter X shall pay a fee of Rs. 10/-. (3) Consideration of the claim: Every claim under Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal summarily complying with the principles of natural justice. (4) Application not to be rejected on technical flaw - The Claims Tribunal shall not reject any application made as per the provision of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground of any technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified. (5) Presence of owner and insurer not necessary to award the claim after notice :- The Claims Tribunal shall give notice to the owner and insurer, if any of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, directing them to appear on a date not later than 10 days from the date of issue of notice. The date so fixed for such appearance shall also be not later than 15 days from the receipt of the claim application. The Claims Tribunal shall state in such notice, that in case they fail to appear on such appointed date, the tribunal will procede ex-parte on the presumption that they have no contention to make against, the award of compensation. (6) Award of Claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information necessary form the Police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not on the appointed date. (6) Award of Claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information necessary form the Police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not on the appointed date. (7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of;- (i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident; (ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk; (iii) Copy of First Information Report; (iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; and (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim. (7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the amount payable to each of them. 23(iii). It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimants shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 23(iv). The Hon?ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , 2009 (13) SCC 530 , in para 15 observed as follows: “ 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” 24. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..” 24. Objections of the insurance company as to believing the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle: 1) Two vehicles are involved in the accident. 2) Sufficient evidence is not there to prove the negligence of Respondent No.1 rider of the offending vehicle. 3) Negligence of the deceased cannot be ignored. 25. Answers for the objections: 1) The Court shall have holistic view. 2) As per Rule 476 (6) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 framed in compliance of Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the FIR and charge sheet and the Police record can be the basis to award the claim. 3) Proper person to deny the negligence is the accused before the criminal Court is Respondent No.1. He remained ex parte. 4) No steps are taken to examine the driver or any other witness cited by the Police in charge sheet. 5) FIR and charge sheet are registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6) There is no rebuttal evidence. 26. The above material and discussion relating to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are sufficient to answer against the Respondent Insurance Company (appellant). Therefore, the objections of the appellant Insurance Company found not acceptable and findings of the learned MACT are approved and concurred. 27. For the reasons stated above, point No.1 is answered concluding that the negligence of the Respondent No.1 / driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for accident. Point No.2: 28.(i) Claimants are wife and children of the deceased. (ii) The deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. (iii) The negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. (iv) The claimants are the legal heirs and dependents and they lost the support of the deceased. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation. 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: 29(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. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation. 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: 29(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. 29(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: 30(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. 30(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: 31. 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: 32. 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. 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. 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. e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earning group and notional income group : 33. In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors. (2021) 17 SCC 148 the Hon?ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self- employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income. Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 34(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. 34(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (7 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 . 34(iii). In Surekha and Others vs . Santosh and Others (8 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. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 35. 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 . 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. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensationexceeding 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.” 36. The learned MACT has taken income at Rs.4,500/- notionally. The contention of the insurance company is that the income taken at Rs.4,500/- is without any basis. The grievance of the claimants is that future prospects are not added. Both aspects will get addressed, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,000/- inclusive of future prospects viz. considering the employment and age of the deceased around „40? years (by notionally taking the income around Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/- and adding around 30% to the same). Then the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-. 1/4 th of the same deduced towards personal expenditure contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.45,000/ as against the Rs.40,500/- arrived by the learned MACT. 37. Then upon application of proper multiplier „15? years (by notionally taking the income around Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/- and adding around 30% to the same). Then the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-. 1/4 th of the same deduced towards personal expenditure contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.45,000/ as against the Rs.40,500/- arrived by the learned MACT. 37. Then upon application of proper multiplier „15? the entitlement of claimants for compensation comes to Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.45,000x15) as against Rs.6,07,500/- arrived by the learned MACT. 38. The entitlement towards loss of estate, funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/- under each head instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the learned MACT and under the head of loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each to all claimants is fit to be awarded in compliance of the observations of the Hon?ble Apex Court. 39. 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.6,07,500/- Rs.6,75,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenditure Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- (@ Rs.40,000/-to each claimant) Total: Rs.6,22,500 /- Rs.9,45,000/- 40. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.9,45,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. Point No.3: Violations of conditions of Policy & Liability: 41(i). The liability is disowned by the Insurance Company on the ground of absence of Driving Licence. Burden to prove absence of driving licence is lies on the Insurance Company. The insurance company relied on the evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Ex.B1 to B8 and Ex.X1. It is rightly observed by the learned MACT that the charge sheet is not a substantive piece of evidence. Although recitals can be referred but when there is no basis for what is reflected in the contents of the charge sheet and when the evidence adduced is creating some doubt on the credit worthiness of the recitals looking at proper proof is necessary. 41(ii). Ex.A1-letter of authorization to RW.1 is not of much helpful. Ex.B2- Insurance Policy is not disputed and it is covering the period of accident. 41(ii). Ex.A1-letter of authorization to RW.1 is not of much helpful. Ex.B2- Insurance Policy is not disputed and it is covering the period of accident. Notice issued to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2 by itself is no use particularly when Ex.B1 indicating that the same was returned to the sender and the reason for sending is not specified. 41(iii). It is also elected from the cross examination of RW.1 that the address to which the notice is sent is different from the address of the accused in the charge sheet. Therefore, the exercise of sending notice to the rider and owner of the vehicle is not of much help to the Insurance Company. The evidence of RW.2 that he did not issue any notice to the rider of the Motorcycle to produce driving licence nor he did examine any official of the RTI suggests that there is no sound basis for the conclusion arrived by RW.2 as to want of absence of driving licence to Respondent No.1. 41(iv). The judgments cited for the Insurance Company before the learned MACT reiterated in the grounds of appeal would apply where the absence of driving licence is proved. But, in the case of like present one where the Insurance Company is not having sound material basis, the judgment does not apply. Therefore, it is found that the Insurance Company has failed to prove its defence. The objections of the insurance company as to absence of licence and violation of conditions of policy are not shown with any convincing evidence. Therefore, the liability of both respondents is joint and several and Respondent No.2 / appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation in view of the Insurance Policy. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 42. In view of the discussion made and conclusion arrived under point Nos.2 and 3, the liability fixed on Respondent No.2 that the appellant Insurance Company is fit to be accepted and concurred. However, the quantum of compensation required to be modified, enhancing the same to Rs.9,45,000/-. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. Point No.5: 43. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of points Nos.1 to 4, Point No.5 is answered as follows: In the result: (i) The appeal is dismissed. However, the quantum of compensation required to be modified, enhancing the same to Rs.9,45,000/-. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. Point No.5: 43. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of points Nos.1 to 4, Point No.5 is answered as follows: In the result: (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,22,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) 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.