JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - Cum - Additional District Judge at Khammam in MVOP No.766 of 2010, dated 09.01.2012. 2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents in MVOP No.766 of 2010. 3.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the death of the deceased Mohammad Kifayatullah. 3.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2- petitioner No.2 is the son, appellant No.3-petitioner No.3 is the daughter of Late Mohammad Kifayatullah. 3.3. Mohammad Kifayatullah was working as a Senior Charge Man in Dolomite Mines, V.S.P., at Madaram Village and was drawing a salary of Rs.23,732/- per month and the Net salary is Rs.18,089/-. On 05.05.2009, Mohammad Kifayatullah and respondent No.1 who were colleagues went to Hyderabad on their personal work in a Train. Both of them got down the train at Mahabubabad Railway Station. Respondent No.1 offered Kifayatullah to sit on his bike bearing Registration No.AP-20-AA- 3308 as a pillion rider to go to their respective houses. When they were proceeding to Madaram on R & B Road and reached near Oddugudem Village at about 8.30 P.M., respondent No.1 drove the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner, he did not observe the bricks lying on the road, lost control over the vehicle. Thereby Mohammad Kifayatullah fell down and sustained head injury, he was shifted to Health Care Centre, as the injury is being serious, he was shifted to Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam. On the advice of the Doctors, he was again shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, on the way to Hyderabad Mohammad Kifayatullah died on 06.05.2009 at about 4.20 A.M. On the complaint, Police Yellandu has registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2009 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost her husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3- petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost her husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3- petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father. Kifayatullah would have lived up to 70 years and who could have worked for 15 more years and earned Rs.45 Lakhs and restricted their claim to Rs.20 Lakhs and prayed to allow the OP as prayed for. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and further contended that respondent No.1 did not pay extra premium covering the pillion rider for his motor-cycle. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the pillion rider and prayed to dismiss the OP. 6. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP.20-AA-3308? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 – U.Seetharama Raju, PW.3 – P.Venkata Kumar and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 has examined RW.1 – S.Seshagiri who is the Senior Officer of the company and got marked Ex.B1 – Copy of Insurance Policy. 8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has exonerated respondent No.2 as dismissed and awarded compensation of Rs.17,55,648/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition (06.08.2010) till the date of deposit directing respondent No.1 to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the order (09.01.2012). 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants-petitioners and Ex.B1 is a comprehensive policy. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the compensation in accordance with law and ought to have fastened the liability against respondent No.2 as per the circular issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009. The Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that Ex.B1 Policy does not cover pillion rider and the Policy is restricted to the personal accident claim to the owner-cum-driver and pillion rider is a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that Ex.B1 Policy does not cover pillion rider and the Policy is restricted to the personal accident claim to the owner-cum-driver and pillion rider is a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under different heads and failed to see that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a Social Welfare Legislation. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others , (2003) 2 SCC 274 (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Balakrishnan and Another , 2013 (1) ALD 106 (SC) (3) Yerramma and Others Vs. G.Krishnamurthy and Another (2014) 15 SCC 65 (4) Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others 2023 (1) ALD 107 (SC) (5) Sohel Sardar Khan Vs. S.Rama Pathi Rao and Another 2013 (3) ALD 495 (DB) (6) Adam Indur Muttemma and Others Vs. Rathod Reddia and Others , 2015 (4) ALT 775 (L.B.) 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that as Ex.B1 Policy is a comprehensive Policy, the Tribunal ought not to have been exonerated the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has rightly taken the Net salary of the deceased while calculating the compensation and the Calculation Memo filed by the appellants is incorrect and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed Calculation Memo. 12. Heard counsel on record, perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: (1) Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just compensation, if so? (2) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this court? Point Nos.1 and 2: 14. Appellants’ counsel has challenged the quantum and also challenged that the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated in paying the compensation to the appellants-petitioners. 15. In Nagappa,(supra) the Supreme Court held that “In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is – it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence”. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is – it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence”. The same view is followed in Adam Indur Muttemma (supra). 16. The learned Tribunal while exonerating respondent No.2 from the liability held that the Policy is issued for respondent No.1 covering the crime vehicle, at page No.2 of the Insurance Policy (Ex.B1) premium policy coverage shows compulsory to personal accident. Owner cum driver of accident vehicle is only covered and held that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. 17. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has issued a Circular dated 16.11.2009 which states that “Pillion Rider carried on two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy”. 18. In Balakrishnan 2 , the Supreme Court observed that “Comprehensive – package Policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant”. The same view is taken in Sohel Sardar Khan5. 19.1. Senior Officer of respondent No.2 is examined as RW.1 and his evidence is that owner of the motor-cycle has obtained Policy for his vehicle but he did not pay extra premium for pillion rider and the risk of the pillion rider is not covered under Ex.B1. 19.2. In his cross-examination he stated that Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy is a comprehensive Policy and Policy is valid as on the date of accident and the driver of the motor-cycle is having valid driving license at the time of accident. 20. In view of the Circular issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, dated 16.11.2009 coupled with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Balakrishnan 2 and Sohel Sardar Khan 5 . This court is of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating respondent No.2 from paying the compensation. 21. 20. In view of the Circular issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, dated 16.11.2009 coupled with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Balakrishnan 2 and Sohel Sardar Khan 5 . This court is of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating respondent No.2 from paying the compensation. 21. The learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.16,736/- per month (as per Ex.A7) which is supported with the oral evidence of PW.3 and deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.11,158/- per month x 12 which is Rs.1,33,896/-, as the deceased was aged about 50 years and he falls within the age group of 45 to 50 and applied the multiplier ‘13’, arrived at Rs.17,40,648/- and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and other heads and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.17,55,648/-. 22. Ex.A5 is the Salary Certificate of the deceased for the month of April, 2009 and his Gross pay is Rs.23,732.27/-, total deductions are Rs.5,643.95/- and Net pay is Rs.18,089/- and Ex.A7 is the Salary Certificate for the month of April, 2009 which shows the Gross pay as Rs.28,449/- and total deductions are Rs.11,713/- and Net pay is shown as Rs.16,736/-. 23.1. PW.3 – P.Venkata Kumar is the Personal Manager, Madharam Dolomite Mines. He deposed that Mohammed Kaifayatullah was Senior Charge Man Mechanical in the Company since 1989 and he was about to retire on 31.05.2024, he has completed 21 years of service and as per the personal records, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.28,449/- per month and he would have become Junior Officer in the company, if he was alive, there should have been three times increase in his salary. Exs.A5, A6 and A7 are issued from his office. 23.2. In his cross-examination he stated that Ex.A6 is the revised salary which was paid to the deceased in 2007 and was drawing a Net salary of Rs.16,736/- per month. 24. Age of the deceased is shown as 45 years in the claim petition, the same age is mentioned in Ex.A2-CC of charge sheet, Ex.A3-CC of inquest report, Ex.A4-CC of post mortem report, hence the age of the deceased is taken as 45 years. Deceased falls within the age group of 41 to 45 and appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. 25. 24. Age of the deceased is shown as 45 years in the claim petition, the same age is mentioned in Ex.A2-CC of charge sheet, Ex.A3-CC of inquest report, Ex.A4-CC of post mortem report, hence the age of the deceased is taken as 45 years. Deceased falls within the age group of 41 to 45 and appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. 25. Ex.A7 is issued at the request of the appellants and Ex.A5 is the computer generated pay slip of the deceased which is taken into consideration for calculating the compensation by this Court. 26.1. In Yerramma(supra), the Supreme Court held that “The gross salary has to be taken after deducting 10% towards Income Tax”. 26.2 In Anjali 4 , the Supreme Court held that “Income Tax Returns is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income” and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate apart from awarding consortium with an increase of 10%. 27. In view of Yerramma(supra), Professional Tax and Income Tax is to be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased. 28. Appellants are also entitled for future prospects, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 29. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 30. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 Hence, Points are answered accordingly. 31. In the result, MACMA.No.1409 of 2012 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 09.01.2012, passed in MVOP No.766 of 2010, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.17,55,648/- is enhanced to Rs.35,29,236/- together with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The Appellants – petitioners shall pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.17,55,648/- is enhanced to Rs.35,29,236/- together with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The Appellants – petitioners shall pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. d) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. e) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.21,17,542/- along with costs and interest thereon and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.7,05,847/- each with costs and interest thereon, and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amounts without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.