JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. MACMA No.413 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the claimants and MACMA No.555 of 2023 is an appeal filed by the insurance company. Considering the fact that these two appeals arise out of the same award and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, “the Tribunal”), these two appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that, M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and parents of Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), against respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs.42,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident. 3.1. It is averred that on 04.10.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-24-AD-6613 from Khaitapuram to Mallareddygudem and when he reached near flyover bridge at the outskirts of Koyalagudem village, one Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.AP-24-AS-4949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed from back side of the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to injuries on the spot. 3.2. The Police, Choutuppal P.S., registered a case in Crime No.315/2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and subsequently, on completion of investigation laid a charge-sheet. 3.3. It is averred that the deceased was aged 30 years, hale and healthy and was working as driver of the APSRTC Bus, Bandlaguda Depot, Hyderabad, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and contributing the same for maintaining his family. Further, it is contended that due to the ultimately demise of the deceased in the accident, the claim petitioners have lost their sole source of dependency and thus, prayed for grant of just and fair compensation vide the said MVOP. 4. The respondent No.1/owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Further, it is contended that due to the ultimately demise of the deceased in the accident, the claim petitioners have lost their sole source of dependency and thus, prayed for grant of just and fair compensation vide the said MVOP. 4. The respondent No.1/owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and accident occurred only due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, who drove the vehicle without having any driving licence, and it was averred in the first instance that Ex.A1-First Information Report was lodged against a unknown vehicle and later on the crime vehicle was planted with the active collusion of the respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle with the claimants, as the deceased and owner of the crime vehicle belonged to the same village. Further, it is averred that the main witness P.W.2, who was examined before the Tribunal, has stated that he has witnessed the accident, however, in the trial in criminal case against the driver of the crime vehicle, he stated that he did not witness the incident and do not know anything about the incident. Thus, the insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-24-AS-4949 causing death of G.Nagaraju ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and against whom ? 3. To what relief? 6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of respondent-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and placing credence of the oral evidence of P.W.2, who was an eye witness along with documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A5, has categorically held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and placing credence of the oral evidence of P.W.2, who was an eye witness along with documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A5, has categorically held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.31,89,560/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization fixing the liability on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 8. Now, the insurance company and the claimants challenging the said award filed the present Appeals and the claimants sought for enhancement and the insurance company challenged the liability and quantum awarded. 9. Heard Mr. P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the insurance company and none appeared for the respondent No.1- owner in both the appeals. CONTENTIONS IN INSURANCE APPEAL 10. The primary ground of challenge raised by the insurance company in MACMA No.555 of 2022 was firstly, they disputed the accident itself, in which the deceased died and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the insurance company mainly contended that Tribunal ought to have discarded the evidence of P.W.2, who has deposed that he was eyewitness to the accident before the Tribunal and stated that the Police authorities did not record his statement at the scene of offence on the date of accident. Per contra, in the criminal case against the driver of the crime vehicle, P.W.2 turned hostile and stated that he did not witness the incident and do not know about the accident. The counsel for insurance company citing the said version of P.W.2 in the examination criminal case filed vide Exs.B2 and B3, contended that the Tribunal has not examined the version of P.W.2 in the evidence in criminal case in proper perspective while deciding the MVOP, and ought to have disbelieved his version as he has stated in the criminal case that he has not witnessed the accident and do not know anything about the incident. Thus, it is contended that the evidence of P.W.2 before the Tribunal was not trustworthy and ought not to have given credence to, and also the learned counsel for insurance company contended that the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident is doubtful in the light of two versions of P.W.2 and it was planted in active collusion between the owner of the crime vehicle and claimants. As such, it is contended that the orders of the Tribunal are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claim should be decided basing on the evidence before the Tribunal and not on the basis of the evidence before the Criminal Court, that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, which is summary in nature, and that the evidence recorded in Tribunal should not be compared with the evidence of the witnesses, who turned hostile in criminal proceedings. CONTENTIONS IN CLAIMANTS APPEAL: 12. MACMA No.413 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The primary ground seeking for enhancement of compensation was that, the Tribunal had wrongly taken the income of the deceased on lower side without considering the oral and documentary evidence properly and had wrongly taken the net salary of the deceased for assessment of compensation by not including other statutory deductions which are beneficial to the family, which the claimants are otherwise entitled to, contrary to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, provident fund, pension, insurance, shares, etc. of the deceased will not come within the periphery of the MV Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in not granting the consortium to all the claimants and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the claimants are entitled for consortium, as such, the award under Appeal is liable to be modified by granting just and fair compensation. 13. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in not granting the consortium to all the claimants and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the claimants are entitled for consortium, as such, the award under Appeal is liable to be modified by granting just and fair compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: i) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Kurnool v. Muchinthala Bharathamma and others , 2012 (6) ALD 66 ii) Hasib v. The State of Bihar , AIR 1972 SC 283 iii) Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Trans.Corpn.and others , 2009 ACJ 1725 iv) Ranjeet and another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and another , 2025 SCC Online SC 497 v) Anita Sharma and others v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another , 2021 ACJ 17 vi) Janabai and others v. ICICI Lombard General Ins.Co.Ltd. , 2022 ACJ 2003 vii) Halappa v. Malik Sab , 2018 ACJ 686 viii) P.Suneela and others v. Shaik Kamal and another , 2019(2) ALD 390 (DB) ix) G.Jayalaxmi and others v. Syed Anwar Hussain Quadri and others , 2012 (6) ALD 412 x) Shabbir Ahmad and another v. MPSRTC, Bhopal and others , AIR 1984 MP 173 xi) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Balinder Pal and others , 2016 ACJ 2140 xii) K.Rajani and othes v. M.Satyanarayana Goud and another , 2014 (6) ALT 331 xiii) Kunta Rajitha and others v. M.Jayapal Reddy and another , 2012 (2) ALD 2 xiv) National Insurance Co.Ltd., Khammam v. Shaik Yousuf Bee and others , 2013 (2) ALD 649 xv) Bodige Padma and others v. Makula Shanker and others , 2013 ACJ 1844 xvi) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vasanthapurani and others , 2018 ACJ 233 xvii) Legal Head, M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurnace Co.Ltd. v. Radharani School and others , 2022 AAC 236 (ORI) xviii) M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hazeera Bee and others , 2025 (3) ALT 59.2 (APNRC) xix) National Insurance Co.Ltd. Dharmapuri v. Shanthi and others , 2020 AAC 23 (MAD) xx) Sunkavalli Padmavathi and others v. Juttu Satish and others , 2024(6) ALD 197 (AP) (DB) xxi ) Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others , ACJ 2013 1441 Consideration: 14. As the liability has been questioned by the insurance company, this Court deems it necessary to decide the Appeal of the insurance company. 15. As the liability has been questioned by the insurance company, this Court deems it necessary to decide the Appeal of the insurance company. 15. Coming to the first ground raised by the insurance company i.e., disputing the accident that occurred on 04.10.2014, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence on record. PW.2-K.Narsi Reddy, who has been examined as an eye witness to the accident before the Tribunal, deposed that he was present at the accident place which occurred on 04.10.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., that at that time, the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road and when the deceased reached near flyover bridge in the outskirts of Koyalagudam village, driver of the crime vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from backside, due to which the deceased fell down from motorcycle and succumbed to injuries on the spot and the motorcycle was completely damaged. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discard the same. 16. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1-Assistant Manager of the insurance company was examined, who deposed in chief-examination that as per the contents of FIR and police documents, the alleged accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of unknown vehicle which was recorded in the FIR and the crime vehicle was not involved in the accident and it was planted and more so, as the statement of P.W.2 differs from the statement in the criminal case and as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, during his cross- examination, he stated that Ex.B1-policy is a package/comprehensive policy which also covers covered third party insurance, as per Ex.A8-charge sheet, driver of the crime vehicle was arrested by the police on 25.10.2014 and the MVI inspected the crime vehicle on 10.10.2024. The learned counsel for insurance company also contends that during the inspection, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not found any damage to the crime vehicle and it is the main contention of the insurance company that, in the criminal case, P.W.2 deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the accident and he has not visited the place of accident and the said evidence of P.W.2 in criminal case is marked vide Exs.B2 and B3. 17. 17. Insofar as the contentions of the learned counsel for the insurance company that, P.W.2 has stated that he has witnessed the accident before the Tribunal, but has turned hostile in the criminal case and stated that he has not witnessed the said accident and does not know anything about the incident and that the vehicle is planted with the active collusion of the owner of the crime vehicle with the claimants, evidently the Police authorities have investigated the case and charge-sheeted the driver of the crime vehicle by examining other witnesses and the Police authorities have laid specific charges against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is settled law that evidence and the findings of the criminal case are not binding on a Civil Court and more particularly, in proceedings arising under beneficial legislation, strict principles of evidence cannot be applied. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have time and again held that mere turning of hostile of a witness in a criminal case cannot be given credence to disbelieve the eye version of the witness in the MVOP and more so, nothing contrary is proved by the insurance company to establish that P.W.2 has not witnessed the accident. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that insurance company has failed to discharge its obligations so far as proving the contention raised by it by placing cogent, substantial material evidence in support of its contention. 18. The citations (i) to (xxx) relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants lend support, to some extent, to the first contention advanced on behalf of the claimants and basing on the said judicial precedents and in view of the compensation arising of motor accident being a beneficial legislation, the credence of P.W.2 who alleged to have turned turtle in a criminal case, cannot be disbelieved and more so, when nothing concrete is placed by insurance company to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 before the Tribunal. 19. In view of the above discussion, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company stand negated and the findings arrived by the Tribunal holding that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident are valid, and the interference of this Court is unwarranted and, consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 20. 20. Coming to the appeal in MACMA No.413 of 2022 filed by the claimants, insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for claimants that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the income of the deceased without adding the statutory deductions, as per the evidence of P.W.3-G.Satyanarayana, the deceased was appointed as contract driver on 29.07.2010 and regularized on 01.09.2013 as per Ex.X2-service certificate, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as on the date of the accident, and as per Ex.X3-salary certificate of the deceased, his gross salary for the month of September, 2014 is Rs.17,405.84 and after deductions i.e., Rs.2997/-, the net salary was Rs.14,409/-. The said deductions of Rs.2,997/- includes Rs.1412/- towards Provident Fund, Rs.100/- towards Staff Benevolent Thrift Fund, Rs.250/- towards Savings & Retirement Benefit Scheme, Rs.570/- towards Credit Cooperative Society, Rs.636/- towards LIC and Rs.29/- towards other deductions. 21. In Vimal Kanwar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “ 18. The first issue is “whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction”. 19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [ (1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197] . In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court: (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35) “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” Sunkavalli Padmavathi 22. In (supra), the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, while referring the Vimal Kanwar decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (supra), held that, from total annual remuneration of deceased amount of tax i.e., income tax and profession tax to be deducted and the amount shown under other heads of deductions not to be deducted from income for computing the just and fair compensation. 23. In the light of the above decisions stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that, except income tax and profession tax, the amounts shown under the other heads of deductions is not liable to be deducted from income of the deceased for computing just and fair compensation. Thus, the Tribunal erred in considering the net income of Rs.14,410/-, without including the amounts, which are shown under the other heads of deductions under Ex.X3-salary certificate. Therefore, taking into consideration Ex.A3-salary certificate, the gross salary of Rs.14,705/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased for computing the fair and just compensation and the same needs to be modified to that extent. 24. Therefore, taking into consideration Ex.A3-salary certificate, the gross salary of Rs.14,705/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased for computing the fair and just compensation and the same needs to be modified to that extent. 24. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for claimants on the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others , 2023 (1) ALD 107 (SC) , the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of consortium, the same has not given effect to by the Tribunal, however granted only Rs.44,000/- towards consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and the same has to be revised for every three years @ 10%, and In view of the same, since the impugned award is of the year 2022, from 2022-2025, 10% should be enhanced, ie. from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.44,000/- i.e., Rs.22,00,000/- being the claimants are five in number, towards loss of consortium; from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and the same needs to be modified to that extent. 25. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for claimants deserve to be modified. Conclusion: 26. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence placed on record, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.2,08,860/- per annum (Rs.17,405/- per month) 2 Future prospects Rs.1,04,430/- (i.e., 50% of the income Rs.2,08,860/-) 3 Total Income Rs.3,13,290/- per annum 4 Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.78,322/- (i.e., 1/4th of Rs.3,13,290/-) 5 Net Income Rs.2,34,968/- (i.e., Rs.3,13,290/- (-)Rs.78,322/- ) 6 Multiplier 16 7 Loss of dependency (Sl.Nos.1 to 5) Rs.37,59,488/- (i.e., Rs.2,34,968/- x 16) 8 Compensation for loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 5) Rs. 2,20,000/- 9 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 10 Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total compensation to be paid : Rs.40,12,488/- 27. The total compensation amount payable to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.31,89,560/- to Rs.40,12,488/- and also as per Pranay Sethi (supra), interest has to be granted @ 7.5% per annum and the interest part also is accordingly modified. 2,20,000/- 9 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 10 Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total compensation to be paid : Rs.40,12,488/- 27. The total compensation amount payable to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.31,89,560/- to Rs.40,12,488/- and also as per Pranay Sethi (supra), interest has to be granted @ 7.5% per annum and the interest part also is accordingly modified. The said compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The insurance company is directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by insurance company. The ratio of apportionment of amounts among the appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal shall be the same in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal. 28. In the result, MACMA No.555 of 2022 filed by the insurance company is dismissed, and the MACMA No.413 of 2022 filed by claimants is partly allowed. 29. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.