N. K. MODY, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 6. 3. 1999 passed by M. A. C. T. , shajapur in Claim Case No. 37 of 1997 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 1 was the owner of Tempo bearing registration No. MP 13-T 0461. On the relevant date, the offending Tempo was insured with respondent No. 3. The offending vehicle was stolen on 3. 5. 1995. F. I. R. was lodged by respondent No. 1 in the concerned police station. Thereafter an accident took place on 20. 6. 1995 by the offending vehicle which was being driven by deceased Rashid Khan, respondent No. 2. In the claim petition filed by appellant, learned Tribunal held that since the vehicle was stolen on 3. 5. 1995 and the accident has taken place on 20. 6. 1995, therefore, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the insurer is liable for payment of amount of compensation. In the claim petition filed by appellant, learned Tribunal has held that, it is clear that vehicle was stolen prior to the accident, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not liable for payment of amount of compensation because the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorised person. Hence the claim petition was dismissed. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that in the circumstances award could have been passed only against the person who was driving the vehicle. Since the name of Rashid Khan, respondent No. 2, has already been deleted, therefore no amount can be awarded as compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident the owner of vehicle was respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were equally liable for payment of compensation so far as third party is concerned. Reliance was placed in the matter of United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 15 of the order as under:"just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief, there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he has no licence. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 15 of the order as under:"just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief, there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he has no licence. Can the insurance company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic 'no'. To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the company is of insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer the loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with what is laid down in aforementioned cases, viz. , that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Nagindas v. Nasir Ali, 1997 ACJ 1093 (MP), wherein a Division Bench of this court in para 12 of its order has observed that it is the vehicle that required to be insured and not the person or the owner of the vehicle and in such a situation, the insurance company cannot escape its liability. ( 6 ) MR. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the insurer/insurance company cannot be held liable for the accident. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. ( 6 ) MR. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the insurer/insurance company cannot be held liable for the accident. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), wherein the point under consideration was that whether the insurance company is liable in case where accident took place at 2. 20 p. m. and cover note contains an express mention of the effective date and time of commencement of insurance as 2. 55 p. m. The Apex Court has held that the insurance company is not liable. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that consent or permission of the owner of the insured was necessary. Since the vehicle was stolen on 3. 5. 1995 of which the F. I. R. was lodged by insured, therefore, for the accident which took place on 20. 6. 1995, i. e. , after more than a month of the theft neither the insured nor the insurance company can be held responsible because the liability of the owner of the vehicle is vicarious in nature. ( 8 ) IN the present case, on the strength of this, learned counsel submits that since the offending vehicle was being driven by unauthorised person who has expired and who was having no valid authority on behalf of respondent No. 1, therefore, neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No. 3 can be held responsible for payment of compensation. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 tries to distinguish the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) and submits that point involved before Hon'ble Apex Court was relating to fake driving licence and the example quoted by the Apex Court cannot be cosidered having a binding effect. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 tries to distinguish the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) and submits that point involved before Hon'ble Apex Court was relating to fake driving licence and the example quoted by the Apex Court cannot be cosidered having a binding effect. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the word 'owner' is defined under section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 which reads as under:" (30) 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that section 53 of the Act of 1988 provides the procedure relating to suspension of registration which reads as under:"53. Suspension of registration.- (1)If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction- (a) is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or (b) has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such, the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle- (1) in any case falling under clause (a), until the defects are rectified to its satisfaction; and (ii) in any case falling under clause (b), for a period not exceeding four months. (2) An authority other than a registering authority shall, when making a suspension order under sub-section (1), intimate in writing the fact of such suspension and the reasons therefor to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is at the time of the suspension. (2) An authority other than a registering authority shall, when making a suspension order under sub-section (1), intimate in writing the fact of such suspension and the reasons therefor to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is at the time of the suspension. (3) Where the registration of a motor vehicle has been suspended under subsection (1)for a continuous period of not less than one month, the registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when the registration was suspended, shall, if it is not the original registering authority, inform that authority of the suspension. (4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall, on the demand of a registering authority or other prescribed authority which has suspended the certificate of registration of the vehicle under this section, surrender the certificate of registration. (5) A certificate of registration surrendered under sub-section (4) shall be returned to the owner when the order suspending registration has been rescinded and not before. " ( 11 ) IT is further submitted that rule 60 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rule, 1994, relates to the procedure regarding stolen motor vehicle which reads as under:"intimation regarding stolen/recovered motor vehicles.- (1) An officer-in-charge of the police station where the theft of a motor vehicle is reported by the owner or any other person in possession of the vehicle, shall, immediately after the registration of an offence send intimation to the State Transport Authority in Form M. P. M. V. R.-35 (MVT)and send a copy thereof to registering authority where the vehicle is registered. (2) On receipt of this intimation under sub-rule (1), the Secretary, State Transport authority shall inform all the registering authorities the details of the stolen vehicle in Form M. P. M. V. R.-36 (MVTR ). (3) The Secretary, State Authority shall also maintain a register of stolen vehicles in form M. P. M. V. R.-37 [mvt reg. (T)]. " ( 12 ) IT is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle is not a necessary party to the claim proceedings. For this proposition learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Northern india Transporters Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Amrawati, 1966 ACJ 165 (Punjab), wherein a divisional Bench of Punjab High Court has held that in claim petition driver is not a necessary party. For this proposition learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Northern india Transporters Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Amrawati, 1966 ACJ 165 (Punjab), wherein a divisional Bench of Punjab High Court has held that in claim petition driver is not a necessary party. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Babu singh v. Champa Devi, 1974 ACJ 168 (Allahabad), wherein Allahabad High Court has held that the driver was only a servant of the owner and the owner's vicarious liability does not cease because the servant has not been made a party to the claim. The Motor Vehicles Act contemplates relief against an owner only. ( 13 ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a case of Shujaat Z. Dalai v. Muktabai vitthal Lohar, 1995 ACJ 865 (Bombay), wherein Bombay High Court while dealing with the claim petition observed that "the registration book in respect of the said vehicle does not show that the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred from the name of appellant No. 1 to any other third party at any time. The ownership of appellant no. 1 in respect of the said vehicle was not extinguished merely by reason of the alleged theft. The name of appellant No. 1 continues to be shown as registered owner of the said vehicle on the date of the said accident. The expression 'owner' as has been defined in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. ( 14 ) RELIANCE was placed on the decision in the matter of Vaddepalli Rajesham v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. , 2002 ACJ 1993 (AP), wherein Andhra pradesh High Court has held that as per provisions of the Act it is not obligatory that the driver must be added as party. ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid fact, it is evident that on the date of accident respondent No. 1 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the same was insured with respondent no. 3. ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid fact, it is evident that on the date of accident respondent No. 1 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the same was insured with respondent no. 3. It is also evident from the facts that no action was taken for suspension of registration under section 53 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and also no procedure was followed regarding intimation of stolen vehicles as laid down under rule 60 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Since the obiter dicta cum incidental remark, of the hon'ble Apex Court is also binding on this court, therefore, as per the example quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 in the case of Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), the insurance company, respondent No. 3, cannot be exonerated from its liability. In view of this, the appeal stands allowed. The award impugned herein passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. ( 16 ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, deceased was aged six years. Death took place on 2. 6. 1995, i. e. , before ten years. Appellant who happens to be father of deceased is a labourer. The mother of deceased has not been impleaded as party. Similarly, from the record it is not evident whether the deceased was having any brother or sister. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad high Court in the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vibha Sengar, 2002 acj 739 (Allahabad), wherein in case of death of student aged 12 years, a sum of rs. 1,50,000 was awarded. Another reliance was placed on a decision passed by division Bench of this court in the matter of Suganbai v. Subhash, 2004 ACJ 1075 (MP), wherein this court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in case of death of a girl aged 16 years. For deducting one-third of the amount from the notional income of the deceased, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Fakeerappa v. Karnataka cement Pipe Factory, 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), wherein deduction was restricted up to one-third for determination of dependency. ( 18 ) IN the present case, deceased was aged six years. ( 18 ) IN the present case, deceased was aged six years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that appellant is entitled for compensation on the basis of notional income, which is assessed as rs. 15,000 per year. Since the age of the deceased was 6 years and the appellant is only legal representative, therefore, deduction of 50 per cent of the amount from the income of the deceased appears to be just and proper. After applying the multiplier of 15, appellant is entitled for a sum of rs. 1,12,500 for dependency. Appellant is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection and rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. Thus, appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,27,500, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .