JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.3020 of 2016 I. Introductory:- Dissatisfied with the award and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2007 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada [for short “MACT”], the claimants filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the learned MACT under the impugned orders. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. II. Case of claimants: 3. [i] One Dharmachakra Narayana Rao, [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’] is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant Nos.4 and 5. [ii] On the fateful day i.e. on 11.09.2006 9.30 a.m., while the deceased was coming to Guduru from Chennai on his Motor cycle bearing No.TN 22 AH 3156, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8669 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] being driven by the 1 st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, without indicating the signals and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling, whereby the accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot. [iii] A case in Crime No.140 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Nayudupet Police Station. [iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and the offending vehicle is owned by the 2 nd respondent, insured with the 3 rd respondent, therefore, all the respondents are accountable and liable to pay compensation. [v] The deceased was aged about ‘48’ years, hale and healthy. By the time of accident, he was drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as remuneration. He was an Income Tax assessee. Due to the unfortunate death of the deceased, the claimants lost valuable financial support, love and affection. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, which the respondents are liable to pay. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. III. Case of Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company: 5. Due to the unfortunate death of the deceased, the claimants lost valuable financial support, love and affection. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, which the respondents are liable to pay. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. III. Case of Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company: 5. Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and death of the deceased due to the accident; age, occupation and income of the deceased at the rate claimed, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and that the Policy issued by the respondent No.3 has been in force etc.. 6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1) Whether the deceased P.Dharmachakra Naryana Rao died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 11.09.2006 at 9.30 a.m. at Pandurru cross-road, NH-5, Nayudupet, Nellore District due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8669? 2) If so, what is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount? 4) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 7. Oral evidence Description Remarks P.W.1 P.Nagaratnam Claimant No.1 / Wife of the deceased. PW.2 K.Ranganatha Reddy Who issued Ex.A8/ Salary Certificate RW.1 G.Syam Babu [A.O. in R3-Insurance Co. (Eschewed)] RW.2: K. A. Poornachandra Rao Assistant Manager in R3-Insurance Co. Documentary Evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.140 of 2006 of Naidupeta P.S. On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.A2 Copy of Post Mortem Report Ex.A3 Copy of Inquest Report Ex.A4 Copy of Income Tax Return of the deceased for the year 2004-05 Ex.A5 Copy Income Tax return of the deceased for the year 2005-06 Ex.A6 Copy of the Income Tax return of the deceased for the year 2006-07 Ex.A7 Certificate issued by auditor of deceased about the income of deceased and Tax paid during the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. Ex.A8 Salary Certificate dated 06.12.2006 issued by PW.2 Ex.A9 Copy of M.V.I. Report Ex.X1 Attested copy of Minutes of the General Body Meeting of Siva Srinivasa Educational Society dated 28.12.2003 Marked on behalf of the Third Parties Ex.X2: Attested copy of minutes of the General Body meeting of Siva Srinivasa Educational Society dated 30.05.2007 Ex.X3 Copy of Proceedings dated 29.12.2003 while handing over charge of Secretary/correspondent to deceasd Ex.X4 T.C. of the deceased. V. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. [i] Since the claimants filed the application under Section 166 of M.V. Act, they shall prove the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle is not placed before the Court. Informant under F.I.R. is not an eye witness to the accident. No eye witness is examined before the Court. Therefore, the petitioners failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, the 3 rd respondent claimed that the negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. Therefore, the petitioners/claimants failed in establishing the negligence. [ii] Learned MACT taken note of the income of the deceased at Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. and found that the multiplier ’13’ is applicable and entitlement of the claimants shall be for Rs.26,00,000/-. In all the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.27,75,000/- but as they failed to prove the negligence, their petition is liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. VI. Arguments in the appeal: For the Appellants/Claimants: 9. [i] The learned MACT erred in dismissing the claim in toto. [ii] Learned MACT ought to have considered the documentary evidence vide Ex.A1 to A9, which indicates the occurrence of the accident. [iii] Mere failure to file charge sheet does not by itself indicate the absence of negligence. [iv] The respondents did not take any steps to place any kind of evidence including that of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, learned MACT ought to have believed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. For the Respondents:- 10. Dismissal of the claim by the learned MACT is justified, as no eye witness is examined and the charge sheet also not filed. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned MACT on negligence. For the Respondents:- 10. Dismissal of the claim by the learned MACT is justified, as no eye witness is examined and the charge sheet also not filed. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned MACT on negligence. Quantum of compensation arrived and the calculations thereon on are baseless and excessive. 11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether there is sufficient material to believe the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? 3) What is the liability of the respondents? 4) Whether the Award and Decree dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2007 dismissing the claim petition, is sustainable or requires any interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? 5) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 13. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R.. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that on 11.09.2006 a report was given about the alleged accident and the contents of Ex.A1, indicating the following facts: The Administrative Officer of S.V. Arts and Science College, Guduru reported to Police that on 11.09.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., he received information from Swarna Tollway staff and some others about the accident and immediately he went there found the deceased met with the accident; the persons present at the spot informed that while the deceased was going on a motor cycle, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8669 drove the same with high speed and taken sudden turn without any indication or signal, and dashed the motor cycle, whereby the deceased died on the spot. Accordingly, he reported the matter. 14. Information was submitted to police at about 10.30 a.m. indicates that the accident has occurred at 9.30 a.m.. Proper persons to deny the accident, involvement of the vehicle or negligence etc., are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. But they remained ex parte. No steps are taken by the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company to examine them. 14. Information was submitted to police at about 10.30 a.m. indicates that the accident has occurred at 9.30 a.m.. Proper persons to deny the accident, involvement of the vehicle or negligence etc., are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. But they remained ex parte. No steps are taken by the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company to examine them. The material on record is indicating that a case was registered indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle and it is also relevant to note that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., AP 16 U 8669 is shown as accused in the F.I.R. in Crime No.140 of 2006, marked as Ex.A1. VII. Precedential Guidance: Precedential Guidance:- 15. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 which reads as under: “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..” 16. In a case between Bhagwan Ram and Ors. Vs. Deen Dayal and Ors. , [2013 (0) SC (Raj) 812] , while considering the nature of proof is required for believing the negligent driving in Motor Accident Claims, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan found that Certificate and the copies of documents prepared by the Police on the spot, including the Challan, First Information Report etc. are admissible, even in the absence of statement of eye witnesses and the same can be the basis to believe the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, vide para-11 which reads as follows: “11. are admissible, even in the absence of statement of eye witnesses and the same can be the basis to believe the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, vide para-11 which reads as follows: “11. The fact that any of the eye witness or the police personnel and authorities, who had prepared the documents - certified copies of challan Exhibit-1, First Information Report as Exhibit-2, Naksha Mauka as Exhibit-4, Halat Mauka as Exhibit-5, Postmortem Report as Exhibit- 10 were not examined is of no consequence. The said documents being certified copies of public documents even in absence of such statements are admissible in evidence as held by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Devilal & Ors., reported at 1991 ACJ 230 and Shrwan Kumar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., reported at 1995 ACJ 337 . It was held by this Court in the case of Shrwan Kumar as under:- "18. Public documents like the first information report and the report of the mechanical inspection of the bus can be taken into consideration and this point is no longer res integra so far as this court is concerned. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Devilal, 1991 ACJ 230 (Rajasthan) , it was observed that strictly speaking, provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable before the Tribunal; if a document is a certified copy of a public document it need not be proved by calling a witness or the person who prepared it.” 17. In Anitha Sarma and Others Vs. New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. , [ 2021(1) SCC 171 ] , the Honble Apex Court observed that in Motor Accident Claims, standard of proof is one of the preponderance of possibilities render beyond reasonable doubt; approach and role of the Courts, while examining the evidence in accident cases, ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of the best eye witnesses, as may happen in criminal Trial, but instead should be only to analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. The observations in para-17 are as follows:- “17. The observations in para-17 are as follows:- “17. Unfortunately, the approach of the High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the appellant- claimants' hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometers away in an altogether different State. Close to the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand [Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 828 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 605] , viewed that : (SCC p. 638, para 12) “12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed [Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302] the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. … ‘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.’” 18. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors. , [2009 Supreme (AP) 136 : 2010 (2) ALD 403 : 2009 (3) ALT 260 ] , the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors. , [2009 Supreme (AP) 136 : 2010 (2) ALD 403 : 2009 (3) ALT 260 ] , the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows: “5. Point: Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer. 6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may". 7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub-rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself.” 19. 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 claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 20. 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 claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 20. In Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in Para 7 to 9, as follows:- “ 7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [ (2009) 13 SCC 530 ] 8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta [ (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 328] while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three- Judge Bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow : (SCC p. 518, para 10) “10. (ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. ….. (v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. … (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.” 9. The following further observation available in para 10 of the Report would require specific note : (Shila Datta case [ (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 328], SCC p. 519) “10. The following further observation available in para 10 of the Report would require specific note : (Shila Datta case [ (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 328], SCC p. 519) “10. … We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.” Factual side of the case:- 21. It is pertinent to note the following: 1) Owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 2) No steps are taken to examine them. 3) There is no denial about the vehicle having been insured with the respondent No.3. 4) The Motor Vehicle Inspector report is indicating the involvement of the vehicle. 5) The petitioners are third parties. 6) What prevented the Insurance Company from examining the owner and driver is not even whispered. 7) The Inquest report is also indicating that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. 8) It is not the case of the respondent that no charge sheet is filed against the respondent-offending vehicle. 9) Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules contemplates that F.I.R. can be the basis. 10) RW.1, who deposed on behalf of the Insurance Company, during the cross-examination, stated that respondent No.3 is disputing only the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners. 22. In view of the statutory and precedential guidelines as well as factual position narrated above, it is found that, the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and the findings of the learned MACT contra are fit to be rejected. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 23. [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. [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. [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: 24. [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. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 25. 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: 25. 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: 26. 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. Factual position: 27. The 1 st claimant examined as PW.1, stated that the deceased was aged about ‘48’ years and he is the founder and Secretary of S.V. Arts and Science College, Gundur, Nellore District, drawing Rs.20,000/- per month as remuneration and he is also an Income Tax Assessee. She has referred to Income Tax returns for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and also Salary Certificate issued by the College and Certificate of the Charted Accountant. 28. PW.2, Secretary of the S.V. Arts and Science College, deposed that the deceased was working as Secretary and Correspondent and drawing Rs.20,000/- as consolidated salary. He has acted as faculty member for colleges at Chennai, Kakinada and running tuitions there. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that as on the date of examination, PW.2 is not the Correspondent. The vouchers, receipts etc., might have been reflected in accounts, but they are not filed. Witness, on his own, added that due to floods the records were lost. 29. The Tax Returns under Ex.A7 are reflecting, for the year 2004-05 income at Rs.2,29,200/- and Tax at Rs.10,538/-, for the year 2005-06 income at Rs.1,32,500/- and Tax at Rs.10,503/-, for the year 2006-07 income Rs.2,16,000/- and Tax at Rs.12,542/-. Ex.A6/Income Tax return submitted on 12 th October, 2006 is indicating income at Rs.1,86,480/-. Tax at Rs.12,542/-. Gross income is at Rs.2,16,000/-. The Tax returns under Ex.A6 was submitted on 12 th October, 2006 and the date of accident is on 11.09.2006. Ex.A6/Income Tax return submitted on 12 th October, 2006 is indicating income at Rs.1,86,480/-. Tax at Rs.12,542/-. Gross income is at Rs.2,16,000/-. The Tax returns under Ex.A6 was submitted on 12 th October, 2006 and the date of accident is on 11.09.2006. Thus, the Income Tax Returns covered under Ex.A6 and the subsequent documents like Ex.A8/Certificate issued by the College authorities are all indicating the income at Rs.2,16,000/-, whereas the income prior to that date is around Rs.1,20,000/- From this material it can be taken that the income of the deceased may be around Rs.10,000/- per month and it comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Possibility of future prospects if added at 30%, the same comes to around Rs.1,56,000/-. 10% of the same, if deducted towards income tax, the same will comes to around Rs.1,40,000/- and 1/3 rd of the same [1,40,000/-x 1/3=46,447/-], if deducted towards personal expenditure, the multiplicand/ contribution of the deceased to the petitioners/claimants will comes to around Rs.93,000/- [1,40,000/- - 46,447/-=Rs.93,553/-]. Multiplier applicable to the aged of the deceased as per Sarla Verma’s case, is ‘13’ then the entitlement of the petitioners for the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to [Rs.93,000 x ‘13’]= Rs.12,09,000/-. The claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 30. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation is as follows: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenditure Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/-to each 5 claimant) Rs.2,00,000/- Total: Rs.14,39,000/- 31. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.14,39,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. Point No.3: 32. Learned MACT dismissed the claim against the 3 rd respondent- Insurance Company, on the ground that failure to prove the negligence. Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/-to each 5 claimant) Rs.2,00,000/- Total: Rs.14,39,000/- 31. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.14,39,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. Point No.3: 32. Learned MACT dismissed the claim against the 3 rd respondent- Insurance Company, on the ground that failure to prove the negligence. however, since the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, and as the witnesses examined in 3 rd respondent stated that they are disputing the quantum of compensation alone and in view of the legal and factual position referred above, under Point No.1, including the crime record, which can be the basis as per Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Point No.4: 33. In view of the discussion made and the conclusion arrived under point Nos.1 to 3, the Award and Decree dated 27.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2007 by the learned MACT dismissing the claim petition, is liable to set aside while allowing the appeal awarding a compensation of Rs.14,39,000/- in favour of the claimants by allowing the said M.V.O.P. accordingly. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the long lapse of time, interest can be restricted to @6% p.a.. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. Point No.5: 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:- (1) M.V.O.P. No.77 of 2007 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada is allowed, by setting aside the dismissal order dated 27.08.2013. (2) Compensation is awarded at Rs.14,39,000/-/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Apportionment: (i) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.7,39,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (ii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled at Rs.2,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. (iii) Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled at Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest. (iv) All the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation amount on deposit at once. (v) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (02) months. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.