1. This appeal arises out of the Award and decree dated 07.04.2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.115 of 1996.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, who was the second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. The deceased Sanjay Singh is the son of the respondents 1 and 2. He was aged 16 years on the date of accident and was studying in Class IX in Grammar School, Hyderabad. On 01.04.1995 at about 11.45 a.m. while he was proceeding on a Luna moped bearing No. AP 9 3973 driven by his sister as a pillion rider, knocked down by a jeep bearing No. AEU 9646 near the Traffic Police Station. He received severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while he was being shifted to the hospital. All these facts are not in dispute. The issue that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. AEU 9646 had attained finality and this being an appeal wherein the challenge is only to the quantum of compensation, the other facts in relation to the occurrence of the accident need not be gone into in detail.

3. I have heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and Sri Venkata Raghuramulu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 (claimants).

4. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month on the premise that he would have become a doctor or engineer or a post graduate, had he not been met with the unfortunate accident. However, it is a matter of record that it is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was a brilliant student but no documents relating to the academic career of the deceased were filed. However, the learned Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation selected multiplier 5 given in the case of BHAGWANDAS V. MOHD.ARIF [1] on the assumption that the mother of the deceased would have attained the age of 51 years by the time when the deceased attained majority had he been alive and deducted 1/3rd towards living and personal expenditure of the deceased, arrived at Rs.30,000/- as contribution of the deceased towards the family, applied multiplier 5 and arrived at Rs.1,50,000/- as a loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- by adding amounts of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1000/- towards transport charges.

5. It is now well settled that even though no amount of compensation has been specifically claimed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by the claimants, it is obligatory on the part of the claims Tribunal to grant the compensation, which is just and reasonable. It is also no longer res integra that the court can grant compensation over and above the amount claimed in the claim petition while deciding the appeal, even though no cross objections have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. The law has been clearly laiddown on this aspect in NINGAMMA AND ANOTHER v. UNITED INDIA INSRUANCE COMPANY LIMITED [2] wherein the Apex Court held that “in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court is duty bound to arrive at a just compensation irrespective of any pleading and the Court may even apply the multiplier specified in Second Schedule”. Therefore, there is no bar as such, to award the compensation over and above the actual amount claimed if it is just and reasonable and the Court is duty bound to award a just and reasonable compensation.

6. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company placing reliance on some judgments contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same being exorbitant has to be reduced in the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants w