JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Amalapuram (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned MACT awarding a compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/- filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that One Bandaru Ayyanna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) aged 65' years, was a pensioner (retired as Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise Department) getting a pension of Rs.6,044/- per month. On 06.12.2009 at about 02:10 p.m., while the deceased and his grandson started from his house at Godasipalem on two cycles to go to the house of one Arigela Veerendranadh at T.T. Nagar, Mummidivaram, and when they were near AIMS College, Mummidivaram, on NH-214 road, a goods Auto bearing Registration No.AP 05 TX 1451 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) proceeding from Kakinada to Amalapuram with a load of empty gunny bags, came in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver, and dashed the deceased, whereby the accident occurred. Deceased was shifted to hospital but while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.12.2009. The petitioners spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. Death of deceased put the claimants to loss of financial support, dependency and love and affection. Hence, the claimants are entitled for reasonable compensation. Case of the Respondents: 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 4. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company, contested the case. Case of Respondent No.3: 5. The petitioners shall prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, and income of the deceased, valid and effective driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and compliance with the conditions of Policy. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., goods auto bearing No.AP5 TX 1451 by its driver i.e. 1 st respondent? 2. 6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., goods auto bearing No.AP5 TX 1451 by its driver i.e. 1 st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 7. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: Bandaru Srinivasa Rao Son of the deceased. P.W.2: Arigela Veerendra Nath Grandson of the deceased. RW.1: Y. Venkata Rao Senior Assistant in the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. RW.2: V. Naga Sankara Rao Junior Assistant, RTO Office, Amalapuram. Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.138/2009 of Mummidivaram Police Station. Ex.A2: Attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A3:Attested copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A4: Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5: Xerox copy of Bank statement. On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance policy Ex.B2: Driving licence extract of 1st Respondent. Ex.X1: Authorisation letter Ex.X2: Driving license of 1st respondent with endorsement. On behalf of the Respondents Findings of the learned MACT: 8. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR and Ex.A4 is the attested copy of charge sheet. P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident. P.W.2 stated about the occurrence of accident on 06.12.2009 and the negligent driving of Respondent No.1. P.W.2 denied the suggestion as to negligence of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the crime record is sufficient to believe the negligence. 9. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Ex.X2 corresponding to Ex.B2 indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle had Light Motor Vehicle non transport and motorcycle with gear category of driving license and transport endorsement was made on 25.11.2010, whereas, the date of accident is 06.12.2009. Therefore, Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle on the strength of Ex.B2 corresponding to Ex.X2. Therefore, there is violation of conditions of policy and the case law relied on by the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kakin Venkata Ramana , [M.A.C.M.A.No.5482 of 2008] supports the same. Hence, Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 10(i). The learned MACT erred in dismissing the application against Respondent No.3. (ii). Hence, Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 10(i). The learned MACT erred in dismissing the application against Respondent No.3. (ii). The learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what was claimed and erred in taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. For the Respondent-Insurance Company: 11. The violation of conditions of policy, particularly the absence of a proper driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident is proved with the evidence of R.W.1 and RW.2 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X2. Therefore, the dismissal of claim is rightly done by the learned MACT and the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. The deceased was aged about more than 65' years and the family members are getting pension. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned MACT regarding dismissal and also the quantum of compensation. 12. Heard both sides extensively. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 13. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether Respondent No.3-Insurance Company can be exonerated from liability on the ground of want of negligence and that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a non-transport driving license while driving a transport- category vehicle? 2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs1,42,000/- is just and reasonable or requires any interference, if so, to what extent? 3) Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 by the learned MACT dismissing the claim against Respondent No.3 and awarding compensation at Rs.1,42,000/- to the petitioners are sustainable or require any interference, if so, to what extent? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Statutory and Precedential Guidance: Driving Licence: 14. The defence as to want of transport endorsement does not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of 'Light Motor Vehicle' driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2016) 4 SCC 298 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [ (2019) 12 SCC 816 ] [Mukund Dewangan(2017)]. 15. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of 'Light Motor Vehicle' driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2016) 4 SCC 298 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [ (2019) 12 SCC 816 ] [Mukund Dewangan(2017)]. 15. Further, the reference made on the point whether “a person holding a licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class non transport can drive a 'Transport Vehicle' without a specific endorsement, provided the 'Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)' of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?” is answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others , [2024 SCC Online SC 3183] at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusions are as follows: 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:— (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 16. It is relevant to note that the evidence relating to the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is not placed by the Insurance Company. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 16. It is relevant to note that the evidence relating to the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is not placed by the Insurance Company. Further, if a person driving a transport category vehicle with non-transport endorsement, where the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs, it will not entitle the Insurance Company to claim exoneration from the liability is the settled legal proposition, as per the Judgments referred above i.e. Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan(2017)] and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others 17. For the above stated reasons, the findings of the learned MACT as to exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability found not sustainable and it is found that Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants and against Respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Point Nos.2 and 3: 18. Since the point Nos.2 and 3 are interlinked, they are being discussed and answered together. 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 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 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. 19(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.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. 20(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. 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 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. 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. 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) 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. 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 (4) 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 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. P.W.1, son of the deceased deposed that the deceased was getting Rs.6,044/- per month as pension and the deceased was aged about 65' years. The income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- is indicated with the Ex.A5-bank statement and the same is not disputed. When there is evidence as to income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- by way of pension accepting notional income at Rs.3,000/- by the learned MACT is found not correct on the ground that Rs.3,000/- is being paid as a pension to the wife of the deceased. When there is evidence as to income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- by way of pension accepting notional income at Rs.3,000/- by the learned MACT is found not correct on the ground that Rs.3,000/- is being paid as a pension to the wife of the deceased. The wife of the deceased who have got the pension and death of her husband even if the death has been natural. 25. The benefits that the legal representatives get by way of pension, compassionate appointment etc. cannot be taken into account while adopting the income for deciding the Multiplicand. Therefore, it is found that the proven income of Rs.6,000/- can be adopted for considering the multiplicand. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month for deciding the multiplicand. Therefore, income of the deceased of the deceased can be safely taken at Rs.6,000/- per month which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. 1/3rd of the income of the deceased deducted towards personal expenditure, then the balance comes to Rs.48,000/-(Multiplicand). Multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 5' and if the same is applied, the entitlement of claimants under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since the compensation awarded under loss of consortium, necessity to award compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is not found. 26. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded Fixed by this by the learned MACT (i) Loss of dependency / Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- (ii) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- (iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- (iv) Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- (v) Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- -Nil- Total compensation awarded Rs.1,42,000/- Rs.3,90,000/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 7.5% 27. In view of the discussion made above, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% and the findings of the learned MACT in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- is not just and required interference and modified accordingly. Point No.4: 28. In view of the discussion made above, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% and the findings of the learned MACT in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- is not just and required interference and modified accordingly. Point No.4: 28. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of Point Nos.1 to 3, Point No.4 is answered as follows: In the result, (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable. However, Respondent No.3 is liable in view of the Insurance Policy. Apportionment: (iv) Rs.75,000/- each is allotted to the share of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Rs.2,40,000/- including total interest and costs are awarded to the share of claimant No.1, wife of the deceased. (v) 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.