Judgment This appeal preferred by the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04-06-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli (hereinafter to be referred as Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 77 of 2004 Smt. Saraswati Devi & another Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the claim petition was decreed for a compensation of Rs. 2,66,000/- along with 5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment against the opposite party-appellant 1 Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05-11-1997, deceased Mahendra Singh was going his village Tedakhansal from Gopeshwar by driving Jeep No. UP.05-0377 and due to the technical fault, when the said vehicle reached near Padaosain Rikholi village, it fell into a ditch as a result of which Mahendra Singh died on the spot. The deceased was earning Rs, 6,000/- p.m. from agriculture work and driving and hence an amount of Rs. 10,35,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. The opposite party-appellant contested the case by denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was stated that at the time of accident, the driver was not having Registration Certificate, Clearance Certificate, Driving Certificate and Insurance Policy. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle and it was not clear whether he was insured or not. 4. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as three issues which are as under: A. Whether the deceased Sri Mahendra Singh died due to the failure of vehicle No. UP05-0377, if so its effect? B. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was being plied in violation of insurance conditions, if so its effect? C. Whether the daimants are entitled for any compensation, if so from whom and how much? 5. The Tribunal after considering the entire material available on record, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and on the basis of the evidence, decreed the claim petition• for a compensation of Rs. 2,66,000/- alongwith 5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment against the opposite party-appellant /Insurance Company by his judgment and order dated 04-06-2005. 2,66,000/- alongwith 5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment against the opposite party-appellant /Insurance Company by his judgment and order dated 04-06-2005. Feeling aggrieved, by the said judgment and order dated 04-06-2005, the Oriental Insurance Company has come up in appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants only challenged the appeal on the ground that the deceased was the owner/driver of the said vehicle and the offending vehicle was not insured covering the liability of insured and hence no liability for paying the compensation can be fastened against the appellant-insurance company. In support of his argument, he cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 7. We have perused the policy. It is a comprehensive policy. The question that arises is whether a comprehensive policy would cover the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also. For the purpose of convenience, it would be relevant to reproduce the policy, which is as follows: 8. A perusal of the aforesaid policy makes it clear that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to Any Persons including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and or not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. It is also provided that a person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies their requirements of Rule-3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is not in dispute in the present case that the owner/driver of the vehicle was having an effective valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, it is clear from the above-said language that the owner of the vehicle in question was also covered at the time of accident by the insurance company and it cannot be said that the owner/driver of the vehicle was not insured covering its liability. In the case of Dhanraj (Supra), the insurance policy was not covering any risk for injury to the owner himself and the premium was being paid only towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In the case of Dhanraj (Supra), the insurance policy was not covering any risk for injury to the owner himself and the premium was being paid only towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. However, in the present case, the owner/driver was also insured with the insurance company and he was paying the premium for his own for driving the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that the owner of the vehicle in question was entitled for payment of compensation. 9. For the reasons recorded above, it cannot be said that the owner/driver of the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident and the learned Tribunal in this regard has rightly considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/ 3rd towards personal expenses, held the loss of dependency to be Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident and since he was unmarried, hence the Tribunal after considering the average age of the parents of the deceased as 50 years, applied the multiplier of '11' and after applying multiplier of '11', it calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs. 2,64,000/-. The Tribunal also rightly awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and after adding this sum, the Tribunal rightly awarded the total amount of compensation as Rs. 2,66,000/- to be paid to the claimants. Hence, we do not find ourselves to be in disagreement with the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 4-6-2005 passed by the Tribunal is upheld. No order as to costs.