Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same impugned award dated 18- 05-2005 and accident of Bus No. U.P.-15L.17640 dated 01-09-2004, therefore, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both appeals, preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have been filed against the award dated 18-05-2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/1 51 Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in MAC. Case No. 203 of 2004 whereby the claim of the claimants was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,06,900/- and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as T.C.) was directed to pay the same with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of '''e claim petition upto the payment. 3. The T. C. has filed A.O. No. 385 of 2005 for setting aside the aforesaid award where it has filed the A.O. No. 101 of 2007 for the enhancement of the had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 4,39,000/- before that on 01-09-2004 the deceased Pradeep Kumar was driving the ons, including his wife and three children, were sitting on the near Daria, Muzzafarnagar-Roorkee road, an offending Bus by its driver rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle. far, his wife Poonam and three minor children died 'e deceased Poonam was 27 years of age at the time of. It was further alleged that the deceased Poonam the claimants had preferred the claim petition. 5. The T.C. contested the claim petition. The T.C. in its written statement pleaded that the accident took place on account of sudden appearance of he-buffalo. It was pleaded that the driver of the Bus was not driving rashly and negligently. It was also pleaded that the motor-cycle was being driven against the policy conditions. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the motor-cyclist. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased Poonam died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident on 01-04-2004; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus; and T.C. was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 7. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,100/- per month, i.e. Rs. 25,200/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 for the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,800/- with the multiplier of '18', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,02,400/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards Loss of Estate. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,06,900/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Poonam in the motor accident. The T.C. was also directed to pay interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the payment. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the claimant as well as T.C. have preferred the present appeals before this Court. 9. Heard Sri Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the T.C.; Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the claimants and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the T.C. contended that it is admitted case of the claimant that the deceased Pradeep Kumar was driving the motor-cycle. He was carrying with him his wife deceased Poonam and three children. On account of excess passengers sitting on the motor-cycle, the deceased Pradeep Kumar could not control his motor-cycle and met with the accident with the offending Bus. It was contended that the leamed Tribunal erred in holding that the evidence of Vibhor Kumar DW 1 Conductor of the Bus was unreliable. It was contended that the motor-cyclist was rash and negligent and had also contributed the negligence for causing the death of the deceased-Poonam. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the evidence of Mahendra Singh-PW2 eyewitness of the accident was credible and cogent. The learned counsel for the T.C. further contended that without any documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal committed error that the deceased-Poonam was carrying out the business of tailoring. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased Poonam was earning 2,100/- per month. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of '18' in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of '18' in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the low compensation to the claimants. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the lower income of the deceased Poonam as Rs. 2,100/- per month whereas the claimants had adduced the sufficient evidence before the Tribunal showing that the deceased Poonam had been earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred by providing low rate of interest, i.e., 6% per annum on the awarded amount. 12. Perusal of the record reveals that the T.C. has pleaded in its written statement that he-buffalo, all of a sudden, appeared on the road and the motor-cyclist tried to escape the hebuffalo. He could not control the motor-cycle as a result of which he came in the wrong side and hit the offending bus. It was pleaded in the written statement that the said he-buffalo also came in front of the offending bus. It was pleaded that the motorcycle dashed with the offending bus. Perusal of para 16 of the written statement dearly reveals that the accident occurred due to sudden appearance of he buffalo in the road. Perusal of the evidence of Vibhor Goel DW 1 Conductor of the offending Bus reveals that the accident did not occur due to sudden appearance of he-buffalo. He had simply stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cyclist. The driver of the offending bus was not produced before the Tribunal who could have deposed the real fact of the case. Mahendra Singh PW2 is the eyewitness of the incident and he had stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus. In this regard, a report was lodged by the owner of he-buffalo. He had also alleged in the report that the driver of the offending bus was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. In this regard, a report was lodged by the owner of he-buffalo. He had also alleged in the report that the driver of the offending bus was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. It is also in the evidence that the bus driver also ran away from the spot and he had not lodged any report of the accident stating therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cyclist. Perusal of the post-mortem report and the injuries shown therein, sustained by the deceased, leaves no doubt that the driver of the offending Bus was rash and negligent. The evidence of the claimants is credible and cogent. We are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending Bus was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. As the evidence led by the T.C. about the contributory negligence of the motor-cyclist was not found reliable by the Tribunal, we do not find any fault in the approach of the learned Tribunal in discarding the evidence led by the T.C. about the contributory negligence. 13. We do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the T.C. that the accident occurred due to overloading in the motor-cycle. According to the T.C: the cause of the accident was sudden appearance of he-buffalo & the motor-cyclist tried to escape he-buffalo and his motor-cycle became uncontrolled. There is no case of the TC. that the accident was caused on account of overloading of minor children. It is to be kept in mind that the minor breaches of conditions of the insurance policy and the breaches which are not found to have been the direct cause of the accident would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to the conditions of the insurance policy would not constitute sufficient grounds to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the claimant. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only that the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage the victim suffered flowed from the breach. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only that the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage the victim suffered flowed from the breach. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 &2004(1) U.D. p/195, the Hon'bleApex Court has held that the Tribunal in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act. It has further been held that the damage suffered by the victim must flow from the breach and it must be shown by the insurer. In the instant case, as we have already pointed out that the accident did not occur due to the breach of the conditions of the policy, as such we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the TC. 14. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 3,06,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the motor accidents claims cases what is important is the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal should be just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya reported in J.T. 2005 (4) SC 531 has held that :"8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master since there are so often many imponderables. In every case it is the overall picture that matters, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. " 15. The claimants led the evidence that the deceased Poonam was doing the work of tailorin J. The claimants examined Dharmpal PW1 who had stated in his evidence that the deceased Poonam was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. by doing the work of tailoring. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was doing the work of tailoring. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- was not of clinching nature. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased Poonam. We also do not find any infirmity in assessing the monthly income of the deceased Poonam at Rs. 2,100/- per month, i.e. Rs. 25,200/- per annum. 16. By deducting 1/3 for the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,800/- per annum. The Tribunal has selected the multiplier of '18'. The deceased Poonam was 27 years of age at the time of the accident whereas her father-in-law Dharmpal was about 49 years of age; mother-in-law Maina Devi 48 years of age and Master Akash 9 years of age. Master Aakash is the sole surviving son of the deceased Poonam. 16,800/- per annum. The Tribunal has selected the multiplier of '18'. The deceased Poonam was 27 years of age at the time of the accident whereas her father-in-law Dharmpal was about 49 years of age; mother-in-law Maina Devi 48 years of age and Master Akash 9 years of age. Master Aakash is the sole surviving son of the deceased Poonam. Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, in our opinion the multiplier selected by the Tribunal was appropriate. 17. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,800/- with the multiplier of '18', the compensation works out to Rs. 3,02,400/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Estate. Thus the claimants become entitled to Rs. 3,12,400/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand Four Hundred only) as compensation for the death of Smt. Poonam. 18. In our opinion, the interest @ 6% awarded by the Tribunal requires no interference. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 3,12,400/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand Four Hundred only) as compensation for the death of the deceased Poonam. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the A.O. No. 385 of 2005 filed by the UPSRTC is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,12,400/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand Four Hundred only) as compensation instead of Rs. 3,06,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased Poonam. The impugned award dated 18-05-2005 passed by the Tribunal in MAC. Case No. 203 of 2004 is modified accordingly. The A.O. No. 101 of 2007 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is liable to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed to the above extent. The amount of compensation shall be disbursed in the same manner and proportion as mentioned in the impugned award. The Registry is directed to remit the sum of Rs. 25,000/deposited by the T.C. as mandatory deposit to the concerning Claims Tribunal immediately. The amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards the enhanced compensation and the interest thereon. The rest of the amount will be refunded to the T.C. 20. No order as to costs.