Common Judgment:

1. These three appeals arise out of the common order and decree dated 09.06.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.354, 355 and 356 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, "the Tribunal"). Since all the claim petitions arose out of the same accident, common evidence was recorded and common findings were rendered by the Tribunal, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased persons were travelling in Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP-16-CD-4546 from Nandigama towards Hyderabad. When the vehicle reached near I.M.A. Function Hall, Suryapet, the driver of the said car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a roadside culvert, resulting in the accident. In the said accident, the inmates of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.432 of 2020, who are the married daughters of deceased-Ch. Ram Devi, filed M.V.O.P.No.356 of 2015 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.433 of 2020, who are the wife, daughter and parents of deceased T. Venkata Subbaiah, filed M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2015 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.437 of 2020, who are the married daughters and parents of deceased Ch. Venkateswara Rao, filed M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2015 seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.65,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.356 of 2015, Rs.80,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2015 and Rs.5,95,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2015 together with interest at 7% per annum, fastening the liability upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 and exonerating respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred the present appeals seeking enhancement of compensation and also challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company.

3. Along with the appeals, the appellants filed applications vide I.A.No.2 of 2020 in the respective appeals seeking permission to receive the certified copy of the insurance policy relating to the offending vehicle as additional evidence. This Court allowed the said applications and the certified copy of the insurance policy was received as additional evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding meagre compensation without properly appreciating the evidence available on record regarding the age, avocation and earning capacity of the deceased persons. It is contended that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that adequate compensation was not awarded under the conventional heads. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in completely exonerating respondent No.3/Insurance Company despite the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced and respondent No.3/Insurance Company be directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal rightly recorded a finding regarding violation of policy conditions and therefore rightly exonerated the insurer from liability. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeals be dismissed.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the resultant deaths of the deceased persons. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence have attained finality. Therefore, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals:

               (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the respective claim petitions is just and reasonable?

               (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in exonerating respondent No.3/Insurance Company from liability to satisfy the awards?

7. M.A.C.M.A.No.432 of 2020: Coming to the aspect of compensation, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants, who are admittedly the married daughters of the deceased Ch. Ram Devi, are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to establish that they were financially dependent upon the deceased and consequently declined to award compensation under the head of loss of dependency. To examine the correctness of the said finding, it is necessary to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha & another vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others (2025 INSC 675), wherein it was held that though a married daughter is undoubtedly a legal representative entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation under the head of loss of dependency can be awarded only upon proof of actual financial dependency upon the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that once a daughter is married, a presumption ordinarily arises that she is being maintained in her matrimonial home and such presumption can be displaced only by producing satisfactory evidence demonstrating continued financial dependence upon the deceased. In the present case, the appellants, except establishing their relationship with the deceased, have not adduced any evidence whatsoever to show that they were financially dependent upon their deceased mother as on the date of the accident. The evidence on record shows that both the appellants were married and residing separately. No material has been placed before this Court to establish that the deceased was maintaining them financially. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption of financial independence remains unrebutted. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in declining to award compensation under the head of loss of dependency. However, the appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, are entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi((2017) 16 SCC 680), the appellants are entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges and damage to clothing, namely Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, are found to be inadequate and are accordingly enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs.1,13,000/-.

8. M.A.C.M.A.No.433 of 2020: Coming to the aspect of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.80,500/- by granting Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants contended that the deceased T. Venkata Subbaiah was doing real estate business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced in support of the said claim. Having regard to the year of accident i.e., 2015 and the nature of avocation pleaded by the claimants, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. The annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 12). Since there are four claimants in the claim petition, one-fourth of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.54,000/-. The deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 50 years is '13'. Accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,02,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 13). The evidence on record clearly establishes that the wife, daughter and aged parents of the deceased were dependent upon his earnings. Therefore, they are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges and damage to clothing are also enhanced from Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.8,15,000/-.

9. M.A.C.M.A.No.437 of 2020: Coming to the aspect of compensation, the claim petition was filed by claimant Nos.1 and 2, who are the married daughters of the deceased Ch. Venkateswara Rao, and claimant Nos.3 and 4, who are the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,95,500/-. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was an agriculturist cultivating commercial crops and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said income. Having regard to the year of accident i.e., 2015, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. The annual income of the deceased would thus come to Rs.72,000/-. Though claimant Nos.1 and 2 are married daughters and cannot be treated as dependents in the absence of proof of financial dependency in view of the law laid down in Deep Shikha’s case (supra), claimant Nos.3 and 4, who are the aged parents of the deceased, are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. One-third of the income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Accordingly, the annual contribution of the deceased comes to Rs.48,000/-. The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and therefore the multiplier applicable is '13'. Accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.6,24,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 13). Further, in terms of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges and damage to clothing are also enhanced from Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.7,37,000/-.

10. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others((2003) 2 SCC 274), under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court can award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record.

11. Coming to the issue of liability, the Tribunal recorded a finding that though the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and consequently fastened the liability exclusively upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 while exonerating respondent No.3/Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that the insurance policy covering the offending vehicle was in force on the date of the accident. The certified copy of the insurance policy has also been received as additional evidence before this Court. Even assuming that there was violation of policy conditions, the law is well settled that such violation would not completely absolve the insurer vis-à-vis third-party claimants. In Kusum Lata & Others v. Satbir & Others(AIR 2011 SC 1234), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where breach of licence or policy conditions is established, the insurer is required to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the insured. Similarly, in the recent decision in Rama Bai vs. M./s.Amit Minerals through Incharge Officer/ Competent Officer and another(2025 SCC Online SC 2067), the Hon’ble Supreme Court applied the doctrine of “pay and recover”, holding that the insurer must satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner. Having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in completely exonerating respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall satisfy the awards in all the three claim petitions in the first instance and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.Nos.432, 433 and 437 of 2020 are partly allowed and ordered as follows:

               i) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.356 of 2015 is enhanced from Rs.65,500/- to Rs.1,13,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

               ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2015 is enhanced from Rs.80,500/- to Rs.8,15,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

               iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2015 is enhanced from Rs.5,95,500/- to Rs.7,37,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

               iv) The Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amounts, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

               v) Upon such deposit, the appellants in these appeals are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in the compensation amount along with proportionate interest and costs, as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security.

               vi) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall satisfy the awards in the first instance and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.