HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1531 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This is a claimants’ appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru in O.P.No.660 of 1994. 2. The claimants/appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Daram Ganga Raju. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident on 18.5.1994. Against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants challenged the award on two grounds: 1) The Tribunal’s finding that the insurance company which is the 3rd respondent in the appeal is not liable to pay compensation, is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 2) The compensation granted is very low and the same is liable for enhancement in this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. 4. POINT NO.1: The Tribunal exonerated the 3rd respondent/insurance company from the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle originally belongs to one Ramesh Gupta. Though the said vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, Ex.B.1 policy shows that the insurer is Ramesh Gupta and the policy not being transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants on United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v Santro Devi and others[1], wherein it was held that: “In this case, the statute itself takes care of validity of the contract. It is mandatory. Once a valid contract is entered into, only because of a mistake or otherwise, the name of the original owner has not been mentioned in the certificate of registration and/or the documents of hypothecation of the vehicle with the bank had still been continuing in his name, it cannot be said that the contract itself is void unless it was shown that in obtaining the said contract a fraud had been practiced. Not only the particulars of fraud had not been pleaded, but even no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. It cannot, thus, be said that a case of fraud in the matter of entering into the contract of insurance had been made out by the appellant”. 6. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Rajahmundry v Petlu Nagaratnam and others[2], a learned Judge of this Court held that when once the vehicle is transferred, the insurance policy is deemed to have been transferred. Even if the original owner of the vehicle is not a party to the proceedings, his non-impleadment is of no consequence and impleadment of the transferee of the vehicle would be sufficient compliance and the insurer cannot escape liability. 7. Therefore, there is no dispute about the legal position that it is enough that the vehicle is transferred to make the transferee and the insurer liable to pay compensation even though the policy has not been transferred in favour of the transferee of the vehicle. The Tribunal therefore, committed a grave error in holding that the insurance company (R.3) is not liable to pay compensation and the said finding being unsustainable in law is set aside in this appeal and it is held that R-3 insurance company is liable to indemnify the transferee of the vehicle and consequently liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants. 8. POINT NO.2: This point relates to enhancement of compensation. The contention urged on behalf of the claimants is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is very low and it deserves to be enhanced. Since the appellants came in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, it is obligatory on the part of this Court to determine the compensation, which is just and reasonable for which the appellants/claimants are entitled. It is now well settled that the Court can grant compensation in a claim under Motor Vehicles Act over and above what was actually claimed by the claimants. Recently, the Apex Court in Ningamma and another v united India Insurance Company Limited[3] held that even though no specific amount has been claimed as compensation by the claimants, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to grant compensation, which is just and reasonable. 9. The deceased was aged 53 years at the time of his death, which is in accordance with the averments of the claim petition as well as Ex.A.2 post- mortem report. Therefore, the same can be accepted. According to the claimants, the deceased was preparing sweets and earning Rs.2,500/- per month by selling them. However, no proof has been placed before the Tribunal regarding the avocation of the deceased. As the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.30/- per day considering him to be an unskilled labourer and arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.750/- per month on the premise that work will be available for the deceased only for 25 days in a month. The income of the deceased arrived at by the learned Tribunal for the purpose of computing compensation, is unreasonable and the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.75/- per day as the income of the deceased even by considering by him as an unskilled labourer. His monthly income would be Rs.75/- X 30 =2250/-. His annual income is Rs.2250 X 12= 26,800/-. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Then, the amount comes to Rs.8,933/-. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with multiplier ‘11’ as per the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, which comes to Rs.1,96,537/-. In this appeal the appellants/claimants, who are the children of the deceased are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,06,537/-. However, the interest of 12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 10. The 1st respondent being the driver, the 2nd respondent, being the insured and the 3rd respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The enhancement of the compensation would be Rs.2,06,537/-. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% p.a., which is on higher side and the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment shall be as indicated by the Tribunal in the award and the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount of their respective shares. The appellants/claimants are liable to pay the remaining court fee on the enhanced compensation. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed without any order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 11th September, 2009 PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1531 of 1999 Dt.11-9-2009 [1] 2009(3) ALD 129 SC [2] 2009(3) ALD 340 [3] 2009(5) Supreme 127