JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri G.Haragopal, learned counsel for the appellant appearing through virtual mode and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Divisional Manager of the New India Insurance Company limited, Ongole under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “MV Act”) against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (in short “Tribunal”) in MVOP.No.428 of 2010, dated 19.02.2013 by which the Tribunal partly allowed the claim filed by the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.26,79,260/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, holding the present respondent No.5 and the appellant – Insurance Company, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, with further directions. 3. The respondents-claimants filed MVOP under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs. 28,00,000/-, inter-alia pleading, on account of death of one Emani Venkateswarlu in a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP07T/1467 (offending lorry) owned by the present respondent No.5 and being driven by present respondent No.4. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of death and working as Assistant Professor in Malineni Lakshmaiah Engineering College, Kanumalla, Singarayakonda and was earning Rs.18,540/- per month towards his salary. 4. The insurance company contested the claim petition and filed counter. The plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, which was violation of the terms of the policy and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. The deceased had no valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The compensation as claimed was excessive and the claimants were not entitled for the same. With respect to the income, age and avocation of the deceased, the insurance company pleaded that the claimants should be put to strict proof. 5. The driver of the offending lorry did not appear inspite of service and was set exparte on 27.12.2010. The owner, appeared and adopted the counter of the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. 5. The driver of the offending lorry did not appear inspite of service and was set exparte on 27.12.2010. The owner, appeared and adopted the counter of the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident dated 10.10.2010 in which the deceased Emani Venkateswarlu died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP07T/1467 by the first respondent as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. The claimants/respondents in support of their claim, examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.X1 on their behalf. For the Insurance Company, its Divisional Manager was examined as RW.1, and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 8. The Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry in which the deceased died. The insurance company failed to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 26 years; his income was Rs. 18,540/- per month. It deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 18 and granting the amount under other heads towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses @ Rs.5,000/-, 2,000/- & 2,500/- respectively, the total compensation of Rs.26,79,260/- was awarded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the challenge is only on the point of quantum of compensation. The monthly income /salary of the deceased at Rs.18,540/- is not correct. The Tribunal legally erred in determining such income based on salary certificate, Ex.A7, whereas as per Ex.B1 – another salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.6,000/-. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have determined the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- based on Ex.B1. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the interest @ 12% is excessive. 11. No other argument was advanced. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that there is no illegality in determination of the monthly salary at Rs.18,540/-. It is based on Ex.A7, salary certificate. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the interest @ 12% is excessive. 11. No other argument was advanced. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that there is no illegality in determination of the monthly salary at Rs.18,540/-. It is based on Ex.A7, salary certificate. The same was issued by PW3, the Principal of the college. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and the amount under conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, is not as per the law but as on the lower side. He submitted that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation, which deserves to be granted by this Court. 13. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants/respondents in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties? 2. Whether the interest @ 12% is excessive?” Point No.1 Just Compensation: 14. In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 14 SCC 712 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, give paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant(s). 15. Para Nos.9 and 10 in N.Jayasree (supra) reads as under: 9. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) give paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant(s). 10. In Sarla Verma, this Court has laid down as under: (SCC pp.131-132, para 16) “16. ...“Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 16. In Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467 , where the High Court of Bombay though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just compensation amount ought to be Rs.49,85,376/-, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para-2 as under: 2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants. 17. In Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, (2021) 17 SCC 148 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation. Merely because in the execution proceedings they accepted the amount as awarded may be as full and final settlement, that shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and claimants are entitled to just compensation. 18. Para No.17 of Meena Pawaia (supra) read as under: 17. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and claimants are entitled to just compensation. 18. Para No.17 of Meena Pawaia (supra) read as under: 17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Union of India that as in the execution proceedings the claimants accepted the amount due and payable under the impugned judgment and order and accepted the same as full and final settlement, thereafter the claimants ought not to have preferred appeal for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. The claimants are entitled to just compensation. Merely because in the execution proceedings they might have accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held to be entitled to. As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and as observed hereinabove the claimants are entitled to just compensation. As such, the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence. 19. In Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under: 10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) gives paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant(s). 11. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., this Court has laid down as under: “16. ...“Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 20. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 20. From the aforesaid judgments it is settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation. Endeavour should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of if they have or not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed any cross objection in the appeal filed by the owner/Insurance company. 21. On point No.1, we would consider the aspect of income of the deceased, future prospects and the conventional heads to determine if the just and fair compensation has been granted or not. Income: 22. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there were two salary certificates. Ex.A7 was filed by the claimants. Ex.B1 was filed by the insurance company. Ex.A7 was issued on 12.11.2010. Ex.B1 was issued on 23.04.2011. Surprisingly, both the certificates were issued by the same Principal, Malineni Lakshmaiah Engineering College, Singarayakonda, where the deceased was Assistant Professor. The said Principal was examined by the claimants as PW3. He was cross-examined by the Insurance Company. He was also re-examined by the claimants and further cross-examined by the Insurance Company. Ex. X1, the Teaching Staff Salary Register of Malineni Lakshmaiah Engineering College, for the months of July, August and September, 2010, was marked by the witness. The Tribunal considered Ex.A7, B1, X1 and the evidence of PW3 and on appreciation, came to the conclusion that the deceased was the Assistant Professor in the college. His monthly salary was Rs.18,540/-. The Tribunal recorded that PW3, in his cross examination, after being recalled, admitted that he mistakenly issued the salary certificate, Ex.B1. The Tribunal also recorded that there was no evidence to show that Ex.X1 was not genuine. It also though observed that a plea was taken by the insurance company that the signature of the deceased and other employees on Ex.X1, was not genuine but the Insurance Company did not take any step to prove that those signatures were not genuine. The Tribunal on such consideration, relied upon Ex.A7, and not on Ex.B1, and determined the monthly salary at Rs.18,540/-. 23. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is based solely on Ex.B1. On perusal of Ex.A7, we find that the salary particulars as on October, 2010 i.e., amount under the heads of Basic, DA, HRA, and total Rs.18,540/- is clearly mentioned. 23. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is based solely on Ex.B1. On perusal of Ex.A7, we find that the salary particulars as on October, 2010 i.e., amount under the heads of Basic, DA, HRA, and total Rs.18,540/- is clearly mentioned. Ex.B1 is “to whom so ever it may concern”. It is certifying that the deceased was Assistant Professor in MCA department of the college from 15.07.2010 and his last drawn salary was Rs.6,000/- per month. This certificate Ex.B1 is dated 23.04.2011. It was issued subsequent to issue of Ex.A7 on 12.11.2010. Both the certificates are by the same Principal. With respect to certificate-Ex.B1, the Principal, PW3 deposed that it was by mistake that the salary was mentioned as Rs.6,000/-. He also denied the suggestion that to rectify mistake, Ex.X1 was got prepared, and filed in the Court. 24. On consideration, we are also of the view that the monthly salary of the deceased is to be determined as Rs. 18,540/-. The Principal, who issued Ex.B1, as PW3 categorically deposed that there was mistake in mentioning Rs.6,000/- per month. He issued Ex.A7 and X1. The witness PW1 also deposed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.18,540/- per month. In her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that the deceased was only getting Rs.6,000/-. It is well settled in law that in the motor accident claim cases, the finding is recorded on preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof is not beyond all reasonable doubts. 25. Based on the appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken one possible view, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same, in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction and particularly when Ex.B1 was considered and there is evidence to support the finding of monthly income of Rs.18,540/- (Ex.A7) and of PW1 and PW3. 26. In Sharanamma and others vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 11 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: "12. Generally, a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal until and unless it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake had taken place. 26. In Sharanamma and others vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 11 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: "12. Generally, a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal until and unless it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake had taken place. If the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was fair and reasonable and the award of the Tribunal was neither contrary nor inconsistent with the relevant facts as per the evidence available on record then as mentioned hereinabove, the High Court would not interfere in the appeal." Future Prospects: 27. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the claimants/respondents that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects. With respect the grant of future prospects, in National Insurance company limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under in paras 59.3 and 59.4: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 28. It is evident from para 59.4 that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, then an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 29. The deceased was Assistant Professor in Malineni Lakshmaiah Engineering College and was of 26 years i.e., under 40 years of age. 29. The deceased was Assistant Professor in Malineni Lakshmaiah Engineering College and was of 26 years i.e., under 40 years of age. So, as per para No.59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% on the income as determined by the Tribunal. Conventional Head: 30. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Smt. Anjali (supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , and Rojalini Nayak and Others vs Ajit Sahoo and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901, we award the enhanced amounts under the Conventional Heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as Rs. 48,400/- (per claimant), Rs. 18,150/- and Rs. 18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini (Supra). 31. The Claimants are thus entitled for the following amount as just and fair compensation :- S. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs. 18,540/- x 12 = Rs. 2,22,480/- 2. Future Prospects (at the age of 26 years) Rs. 88,992/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs. 3,11,472/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e.1/3rd) Rs. 1,03,824/- 4. Total Annual loss of dependency Rs. 2,07,648/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 26 years i.e. 17 x 2,07,648/- = Rs. 35,30,016/- 6 Conventional Heads: i) Loss of Consortium (3 claimants) Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 3) ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs. 37,11,516/- Point No.2 : Interest: 32. We however find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest @ 12% is on the higher side. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 , the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a. and in Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 228 , allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 33. So, on the aforesaid amount the claimants are allowed interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization. 34. In the result, i) The M.A.C.M.A.No.934 of 2015 is partly allowed only to the extent of rate of interest and for the rest, the appeal is dismissed. ii) The claimants/respondents are however granted enhanced compensation of Rs. 37,11,516/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; iii) The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and cost, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month. iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. v) The costs throughout is made in favour of the claimants/respondents. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.