1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2673 of 2016 JUDGMENT: 1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. and the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. in MVOP No.281 of 2013, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the learned MACT”) feeling aggrieved by the award and decree dated 18.06.2015 filed the present appeal. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT. Case of the claimants: 2(i). One Mr. Muthuluri Chenchi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), on 26.08.2012 at about 9:00 P.M., while travelling from Lakshminarayanapuram Village, Darsi Mandal on a motor cycle, near Rajampalli Village on Podili-Darsi Road, A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 289 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), proceeding from Atmakur to Hyderabad, came from Podili side going towards Darsi, hit the motor cycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased and motor cycle fell down and it was dragged to some distance along with the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle stopped the bus and ran away from there. The deceased was 2 shifted to Government Hospital, Podili, and at the Government Hospital, Podili, it was declared that the deceased was brought dead. 2(ii). Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and claimant No.4 is the father of the deceased. All are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. Deceased was aged about „29‟ years; hale and healthy; attending cultivation works and agricultural operations in Ac.4.00 of land owned by him and Ac.3.00 of land of one Mr.Ambati Tirupathi Reddy and Ac.3.40 cents of land of one M. Venkateswara Reddy. The deceased used to raise paddy, green gram etc. and earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and contributing the same for the family. The death of deceased has exposed the claimants to loss in all respects including the financial support. Case of the appellants/APSRTC: 3. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, in fact the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, income and dependency of the claimants and in any event quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 3 i) Whether Muthuluri Chenchi Reddy died in the accident caused by the motor vehicle i.e., A.S.R.T.C. bus No.AP 29 Z 289 on 26.08.2012 at 9:00 PM near Rajampalli bus stand Centre on Podili-Darsi road due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation claimed and from whom? iii) To what relief? 5. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: M. Leelavathi Wife of the deceased. P.W.2: M. Venkateswara Reddy Eye witness to the accident. P.W.3: A. Thirupathi Reddy Owner of the lands under cultivation of the deceased. PW.4: M. Venkateswara Reddy RW.1:SK. Zameer Basha Driver of the offending vehicle. Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No. 121/2011 of Darsi P.S. Ex.A2: Attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A3:Attested copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report Ex.A5:Attested copy charge sheet On behalf of the petitioner(s). 4 Ex.A6: Attested copy of pattadar pass book in the name of the deceased. Ex.A7: Attested copy of pattadar pass book in the name of Ambati Thirupathi Reddy. Ex.A8: Attested copy of pattadar pass book in the name of Muthuluri Venkata Subba Reddy. Findings of the learned MACT: a) On Negligence: 6. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. His evidence is not helpful. But PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He has stated that he has seen the accident along with others and cried loudly. The driver of the bus stopped the bus and ran away from there. 7. The evidence of RW.1 as to the denial of negligence is not much use. To prove the negligence of the deceased, positive evidence is not there except oral evidence of RW.1. The evidence of PW.2, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as the cause for the accident / death. b) On Quantum of Compensation: 8. PW.3 and PW.4 are the land owners stated about the deceased cultivating the land. Pattadar passbooks are in the name of PW.3 and PW.4. Age of the deceased is „29‟ years. His income can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month comes 5 to Rs.72,000/- per annum. On applying multiplier „17‟, the compensation comes to Rs.12,24,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 17). Out of the same, 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the entitlement comes to Rs.9,18,000/-. Other entitlement of claimants is at Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.12,43,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Contentions in the appeal: 9. On behalf of the appellants / A.P.S.R.T.C: 1) When the claim is made for Rs.10,00,000/-, awarding of Rs.12,43,000/- without sufficient basis is irrational. 2) The negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle is erroneously ignored. 3) The findings as to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle are incorrect. 4) Acceptance of income of the deceased at Rs.72,000/- without sufficient basis is not correct. 5) The defect in the claim as to non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company of the motor cycle is erroneously ignored. 6 6) The learned MACT should have deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th of the income towards personal expenditure as the father of the deceased is not the dependent. 10. On behalf of the claimants: 1) There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed. 2) The evidence on record as to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle is sufficient and the learned MACT has rightly appreciated the issue of negligence. 3) When the FIR is registered and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and when there is evidence of eye witness, no inference can be drawn as to negligence or contribution of negligence by the deceased in riding the motor cycle without any iota of evidence supporting such contention. Hence the defence as to non-joinder of necessary party does not sustain and the learned MACT has rightly ignored the same. 4) The quantification of compensation is rightly done. 5) The learned MACT failed in adding future prospects also. 11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 7 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 26.08.2012 has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus / the offending vehicle or there was negligence or atleast contribution of any negligence by the deceased in occurrence of accident? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.12,43,000/- is just and reasonable or require any interference, if so, to what extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Parameters MACT can consider while assessing negligence: 13. 1) Whether there is denial by proper person. 2) There must be convincing evidence from disputing party. 3) There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross- examination. 4) Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb rule. 8 5) Examination of witnesses present at the scene of offence, at relevant time. 6) The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have some importance, in cases of contributory negligence. 7) In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary. 8) The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc. will be helpful to draw some inference. 9) However, no straight jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before the tribunal. 10) Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter. 14. 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 9 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. Reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court: 1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another1. 2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation2 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta3. 4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another4. 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 (2 supra), 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..” 1 2013 (10) SCC 946 2 2009 (13) SCC 530 3 2011 (10) SCC 509 4 AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 10 16. While addressing the defence of contributory negligence, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others5, at Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 made reference to other judgments and extracted relevant observations which are as follows: 36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, {(2002) 6 SCC 455}, this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., {(1999) 73 ALJR 403}, went on to hold that: “… where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty.” 37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, {1931 AC 1}, as below: “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence.” 17. The observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court lead to understand that mere failure to avoid the collision or take extraordinary precautions does not constitute negligence. In the present case before this Court, the evidence is that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit the motor cycle on which the 5 2024 (6) ALD (SC)=2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584 11 deceased was travelling. Therefore, the defence of contributory negligence by the deceased is fit to be rejected. 18. There is no dispute about the registration of case and filing of charge sheet by the Police against the RW.1-the driver of the RTC bus / the offending vehicle. What is the result of the case is not known. 19. Apart from the evidence of R.W.1, driver of the offending vehicle, who faced the prosecution, there is no evidence in favour of the appellant/ A.P.S.R.T.C. On the other side, the evidence of PW.2, the eye witness, a third party running against the driver of the offending vehicle indicating the negligence pleaded by the claimants which is having corroboration from the documents i.e.Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Postmortem Certificate, Ex.A4-M.V.I Report and Ex.A5-Charge sheet. 20. In the light of the above discussed evidence, the findings and conclusions drawn by the learned MACT on the aspect of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle found fit for confirmation. Hence confirmed. The objection as to non-joinder of necessary party found does not merit any consideration as there is no material indicating the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the said objection is fit to be ignored. Hence, the point No.1 is therefore answered against the appellant(s) and in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: 12 Entitlement: 21. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and claimant No.4 is the father of the deceased. The death of deceased due to motor vehicle accident is also clear in view of the Exs.A1 to A5, documents and evidence of PW.1 and PW. 2, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is clear. Liability: 22. There is no denial of RW.1 being the employee and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Negligence of RW.1 is clear and reasons thereof are discussed under point No.1. Therefore, the liability of the appellant(s)/employer of RW.1 and owner of the offending vehicle is clear. 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: 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.6 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier 6 2009 (6) SCC 121 13 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. 23.(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. 14 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 Others7 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. 24.(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 enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and 7 2017(16) SCC 680 15 Others8, 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 others9, 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. 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. 8 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9 (2013) 9 SCC 54 16 e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earning group and notional income group : 27. In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.10, the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self- employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income. Analysis of evidence: Documentary evidence: 28. The documentary evidence relied on for the income of the deceased is covered by Ex.A6-to Ex.A8 i.e. the pattadar pass books. Pattadar Pass books are standing in the name of the respective owners of the lands. Oral evidence: 29. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum which comes to around Rs.8,000/- per month. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is placed in support of the deceased attending agricultural operations. The evidence of PW.3 / A. Thirupathi Reddy and PW.4 / M. Venkateswara Reddy, who are the owners of the lands under cultivation of the deceased is as follows: PW.3: 10 (2021) 17 SCC 148 17 The deceased Chenchi Reddy was an agriculturist. The deceased Chenchi Reddy died in a motor accident about two and half years ago. The deceased was cultivating Ac.3-00 of my land on lease. My land was irrigated through Nagarjuna Sagar Canal. The 12 bags of paddy will be given per acre for lease to me for one year. The yielding per acre is 40 to 50 bags paddy will come. The deceased will get more than Rs.10,000/- net income per annum on one acre after meeting all the expenses. The deceased used to earn more than Rs.1,00,000/- net income per annum on cultivation. Exhibit A-7 pattadar pass book belongs to me. The deceased was very hard working person. The deceased was the bread winner of the petitioners. After this accident the petitioners are suffering a lot for their necessities. Cross Examination: The deceased was my relative. There is no documentary proof to show that I leased out my 3 acres land to the deceased. I don't have any proof to show that the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on cultivation. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false as he belongs to my native place and that the deceased did not doing work prior to the accident. PW.4: The deceased Chenchi Reddy was an agriculturist. The deceased Chenchi Reddy died in a motor accident about two and half years ago. The deceased was cultivating Ac.3-40 cents of my land on lease. My land was irrigated through Nagarjuna Sagar Canal. The 12 bags of paddy will be given per acre for lease to me for one year. The yielding per acre is 40 to 50 bags paddy will come. The deceased will get more than Rs.10,000/- net income per annum on one acre after meeting all the expenses. The deceased used to earn more than Rs.1,00,000/- net income per annum on cultivation. Exhibit A-8 pattadar pass book belongs to me. I came to know by mistake my name was typed as Venkata Subba Reddy instead of Venkateswara Reddy in the chief affidavit of P.W-1. The deceased was very hard working person. The deceased was the bread winner of the petitioners. After this accident the petitioners are suffering a lot for their necessities. Cross Examination: The deceased was my relative. There is no documentary proof to show that I leased out my 3 acres 40 cents land to the deceased. I don't have any proof to show that the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per 18 month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on cultivation. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false as he belongs to my native place and that the deceased did not doing work prior to the accident. 30. The learned MACT accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month as against claimed income of Rs.8,000/- per month. The objection of the appellant(s) is that there is no basis for accepting such income at Rs.6,000/-, whereas the contention of the claimants is that the future prospects are not added by the learned MACT. The grievance of the appellants is that the income of the deceased is taken on high side and the grievance of the claimants that future prospects are not added. Both are required to be balanced. Agricultural income is not taxable. Even income at Rs.72,000/- per annum taken by the learned MACT may not come under the taxable limit. Merely because income tax returns are not filed, it cannot be said that one has no income. The age of the deceased is about „29‟ years. The total dependents of the deceased are four. As per PW.4, the yielding per one acre will be around 40 to 50 bags paddy. Claim is that income would be around Rs.10,000/- per annum per one acre. As per PW.3, the agricultural operation is done in respect of Ac.3.00 of his land. As per the evidence of PW.4, the deceased was doing cultivation in respect of his Ac.3.40 cents of land. 31. There is consistency in evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. However, in respect of around Ac.9.00 inclusive of the land possessed by the deceased getting 19 income at Rs.72,000/- per annum as adopted by the learned MACT cannot be found fault. 32. However, for any reason, the income taken at Rs.72,000/- is to be considered as excessive, as there is non inclusion of future prospects. The income taken by the learned MACT can be accepted as inclusive of future prospects. This will address the grievance of both sides legally, logically and factually. Therefore, it is found that the income of the deceased at Rs.72,000/- per annum can be considered as inclusive of future prospects. Accordingly, the same is adopted. However, awarding of compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses by the learned MACT is not found in tune with the guidelines contemplated under Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others sarala verma and pranay sethi cases referred above. therefore, revamping is necessary. 33. Under the head of loss of consortium, all the four claimants are entitled at Rs.40,000/- each. Whereby under the said head, the entitlement comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. Under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenditure, the entitlement comes to Rs.15,000/- each. Since the compensation is awarded 20 under the head of consortium, awarding of compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is not necessary. 34. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: 35. For the reasons aforesaid, it is found that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,08,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.12,43,000/- is fit to be modified accordingly. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Sl. No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Compensation Rs.9,18,000/- Rs.9,18,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: 40,000x4) 3. Funeral Expenditure a Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- -Nil- 5. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.12,43,000 /- Rs.11,08,000/- 21 Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 36. 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 Others11, 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.12 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.” 11 (2003) 2 SCC 274 122020 (04) SCC 413 22 (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others13 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.” Point No.3: 37. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 and 2, Point No.3 is answered as follows: In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.12,43,000/- is modified to Rs.11,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (ii) Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,58,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. 13 (2019) 2 SCC 192 23 (iii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3, being minors, are entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest. (iv) Claimant No.4 is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest. (v) The appellants shall deposit the compensation amount within two months, adjusting what is already deposited. (vi) On deposit, claimant Nos.1 and 4 are entitled to withdraw the amount at once. (vii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw the amount on attaining majority subject to the necessary recognition as majors and permission by the learned MACT as per the law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:02.05.2025 Note: L.R. Copy be marked (B/o.) Knr 24 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.2673 of 2016 2nd May, 2025 Note: L.R. Copy be marked (B/o.) Knr