JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed by the Insurance Company as well as by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 22.9.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MACT Case No. 113 of 1991 whereby; the learned Judge has partly allowed the claim petition in favour of claimants while holding the responsibility for the payment of compensation on the non-claimant-appellant and has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,28,432/- plus interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 21.12.1990. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.11.1990 at about 1.10 p.m. Ganpat Singh (deceased) was coming towards Jalorigate, Jodhpur on his Scooter bearing No.RNJ 8388. As soon as, he reached near Chief Medical & Health Office, a Bus being No. RJ-19P-555 which was coming from his opposite side and was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed by its driver Roopa Ram (non-claimant-respondent No.6), who hit the scooter, as a result of which, Ganpat Singh fell down from his scooter on the road. The scooter was completely damaged and Ganpat Singh sustained severe injuries on his person. The injured was brought to M.G.Hospital Jodhpur by one Gyan Singh. The injured Ganpat Singh was admitted in the Hospital on 11.11.1990 for treatment but he expired on 17.11.1990 due to the said injuries. The said bus was stated to be owned by Smt. Musveer Mehar and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased Ganpat Singh was 50 years of age and he was working as Head Master in Government Upper Primary School, Daikara Tehsil Luni Dist Jodhpur and he was drawing salary Rs.3276/- per month. It was also alleged by the claimants that they were dependent on the income of deceased and due to untimely death of Ganpat Singh in accident, his parents, wife and children suffered loss of income as well as suffered loss of love and affection, hence, the legal heirs of deceased Ganpat Singh filed a claim petition for grant of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation under different heads. It was prayed that the claim petition may be allowed and reasonable compensation be awarded. 4. It was prayed that the claim petition may be allowed and reasonable compensation be awarded. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that non-claimant- respondents No.6 and 7 driver and owner of the Bus did not appear before the learned Tribunal, as such, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed the written statement with specific plea that the Bus bearing No. RJ 19P/555 was insured with it but It was stated that the deceased was driving the scooter with rashly and negligently, due to that, accident took place, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay compensation. It was stated that there was contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. It was further stated that the Bus driver Roopa Ram was not having valid driving licence to drive the Heavy Passenger Vehicle i.e. Bus at the time of accident and further he was not driving the vehicle under control, direction and in welfare of the bus owner and hence no liability can be fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company. Rest of the averments were denied for want of knowledge. It was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed. 6. Rest of the averments were denied for want of knowledge. It was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- " 1- vk;k fnukad 11-11-1990 dks jkf= ds djhcu 8-15 cts tc x.kirflag vius LdwVj la[;k vkj0,u0ts0 8388 dks lk/kkj.k xfr ls pykrk gqvk [krjukd iqfy;s ls tkyksjh xsV tkus okyh vke lM+d ij tk jgk Fkk rc gSYFk vkWfQl ds ikl vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 }kjk cl la[;k vkj0ts0 19@555 dks vR;a= rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj LdwVj ds lkeus ls tksjnkj Vddj ekjh ftlls x.kirflag LdwVj lfgr uhps fxj x;k] LdwVj cqjh rjg ls {kfrxzLr gks x;k ,oa x.kirflag ds flj o 'kjhj ij xEHkhj o lk/kkj.k pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ ,oa mu pksVksa ds QyLo:i fnukad 17-11-1990 dks vLirky esa mldh e`R;q gks xbZ\ 2- vk;k mDr nq?kZVuk nksuksa okguksa ds pkydksa dh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ\ 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k dqy 8]00]000@& crkSj {kfriwfrZ vizkFkhx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 4- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk cl pkyd ds ikl cl pykus dk oS/k M~kbfoax ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA ;fn ,slk gS rks bl dk D;k vlj gS\ 5- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk cl pkyd chek/kkjh ds fu;a=.k] funsZ'ku] fgr fgrkFkZ o fu;kstu esa oS/k ijfeV ds rgr okgu ugha pyk jgk FkkA ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k vlj gSa\ 6- vuqrks"kA " 7. During the trial on behalf of claimants AW 1 Smt. Shanti, (Widow of deceased Ganpat Singh), A.W.2 Gyan Singh (an eye witness of the occurrence) and AW 3 Inder Singh were examined, their statements were recorded and certain documents Ex.C/1 to C/8 were got exhibited. In defence, on behalf of the Insurance Company, statement of NAW-1 Roopa Ram (driver) was got recorded and his Driving Licence Ex.A1/A was produced and got exhibited. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver Roopa Ram, in which, Ganpat Singh lost his life. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of material available on record, turned down the other objections taken by the Insurance Company. Further after considering the age and income of the deceased and other relevant facts, determined the compensation and awarded a total sum of Rs. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of material available on record, turned down the other objections taken by the Insurance Company. Further after considering the age and income of the deceased and other relevant facts, determined the compensation and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,28,432/- as compensation vide judgment and Award dated 22.9.1994 and held the non-claimants jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 22.9.1994 passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimants, the New India Assurance Company preferred this appeal No.3 of 1995 before this Court for quashing and setting aside the said judgment and award against them. The claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed by way of Appeal No.103 of 1995 for enhancement of the compensation amount. Notices of appeals were given to the opposite parties. Both the appeals have arisen out of single judgment, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record of the case as well as have gone through the impugned judgment and award. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company with reference to Appeal No.3 of 1995 submitted the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and considered the material available on record and has given erroneous findings on the issues, thus, the judgment and award is not sustainable. It was further contended that it was well established on record that on the day of occurrence, the driver of the bus was not having valid and effective licence to drive the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. That was clear cut breach of the terms of Policy, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held responsible for payment of compensation but the learned Tribunal has erroneously decided issue No.4 against the appellant- Insurance Company and on that basis, the responsibility of the Insurance Company has been fastened, therefore, the judgment and Award against the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has cited the judgments rendered in the case of Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki and others, 2004 (3) SCC 343 and The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Petchi Muthu Asari and others, AIR 1999 Madras 413 in support of his contention and prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and Award may be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant respondents has refuted the contentions placed by the appellant's side and submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver was not having valid and effective licence. Though the appellant-Insurance Company himself has produced NAW 1 Roopa Ram but he has denied the suggestions given by the Insurance Company that he was not having valid and effective licence to drive the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle rather he has stated in his statement that for the last 10 years, he was driving the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. It was further contended that the driving licence of the concerned driver Roopa Ram has been produced and that was found renewed at the time of accident, therefore, it is well proved that he was having experience of driving the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. The learned counsel further contended that it will make no difference if a person was driving Heavy Goods Motor Vehicle or Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. The appellant Insurance Company could not take such defences to shirk from its liability of paying compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents also placed reliance on the decision given in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria AIR 2008 SCW 906 , in support of his contention and submitted that in the said case, the driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and he was found driving Matador having goods carriage permit, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the material held that it cannot be said that the driver was not possessing effective licence and held the Insurance Company responsible for payment of compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants further made submission with regard to his Appeal No.103/1995 filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal while assessing the quantum of compensation has not properly appreciated the material available on record and awarded meager amount of compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants further made submission with regard to his Appeal No.103/1995 filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal while assessing the quantum of compensation has not properly appreciated the material available on record and awarded meager amount of compensation. It was contended that at the time of accident the age of the deceased Ganpat Singh was 50 years and at that time, he was posted as Head Master in Government School and was getting salary of Rs. 3276/- vide Ex.C/1. It was urged that there were strong chances of his future promotion during service tenure and there were also full opportunities to earn money by teaching even after retirement as he was having good experience in that respect but the learned Tribunal neither has considered the future prospectus of promotion nor has considered the income which the deceased could have earned even after retirement. The learned Tribunal has awarded only compensation by applying multiplier of 8 taking into consideration the remaining period of service of the deceased but that has not been correctly applied. It was urged that after determining the correct income the correct multiplier of 11 should have been applied. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the present case the accident took place on 11.11.1990. The deceased Ganpat Singh was admitted in the Hospital for treatment from 11.11.90 to 17.11.90. During that period, the claimants suffered expenses of near about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- but the learned Tribunal has not considered these facts and has not awarded a single penny in this respect. It was also urged that during treatment, a doctor having special knowledge of Neuro was called to check and advice, for that, the claimants paid extra heavy fees, but the learned Tribunal has not considered the same. 14. It was also submitted the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the claimants are the old parents, widow, and children of the deceased but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/- in total for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Besides these, no funeral expenses was awarded. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was urged that the appeal filed by the claimants may be allowed and reasonable compensation may be enhanced. 15. 15,000/- in total for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Besides these, no funeral expenses was awarded. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was urged that the appeal filed by the claimants may be allowed and reasonable compensation may be enhanced. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company refuted the contentions placed by the claimant-appellant's side with reference to Appeal No.103/1995 and submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation on higher side and there is no scope for enhancement and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties with reference to Appeal No.3/1995 filed by the Insurance Company and Appeal No.103/1995 filed by the claimants and have gone through the findings and conclusions drawn thereon by the learned Tribunal. The question which now arises for consideration in these appeals are firstly whether in the given facts the appellant- Insurance Company has wrongly been held responsible for the payment of entire compensation amount to the claimants ? Secondly whether the awarded compensation amount by the learned Tribunal is not adequate, and it requires enhancement ? 17. So far as the finding given by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 with regard to the factum of accident is concerned, I have seen the finding. There is no contention in the appeal from either side that the learned Tribunal has in detail considered the material and rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver in which Ganpat Singh lost his life. 18. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that he non-claimant No.1 at the time of accident was plying the bus under the direction and in welfare of the owner of the bus and it is also well established that the bus in question was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company. To this extent the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal are maintained. 19. First of all I have considered the contention placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to Appeal No.3/1995. The main contention of the appellant is that the driver of the offending bus at the time of accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 19. First of all I have considered the contention placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to Appeal No.3/1995. The main contention of the appellant is that the driver of the offending bus at the time of accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The Insurance Company itself has produced the driver of the offending bus and he has stated that for the last ten years he was driving heavy passenger vehicle. The driver of the offending bus has also produced his licence. Thus, from the side of the Insurance Company it has not been established that knowingly any breach of the Policy was committed by the owner of the vehicle. The judgment Malla Prakasarao (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help its contention. In that case, the vehicle was being driven by a driver without any driving licence. Likewise the decision given in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Petchi Muthu Asari (supra) also does not help their contention in light of the authority cited by the claimants in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 906 . In this case, the driver of the offending vehicle was found driving Matador having goods carriage permit but he was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it cannot be said that the driver was not possessing effective licence to drive Matador van having goods carriage permit. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and that is hereby dismissed. 20. Now, I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties with reference to Appeal No.103/1995 filed by the claimants and have gone through the criteria of assessment of compensation adopted by the learned Tribunal. It is revealed that the learned Tribunal after deducting ⅓rd from the salary Rs.3276/- per month drawn by the deceased for his personal expenditure and taking into consideration the remaining tenure of service i.e. eight years, has determined loss of dependency (2184 x 12 x 8)= Rs.2,09,664/-. The learned Tribunal has neither considered the future prospects nor has assessed any income which he could have earned after his retirement. The learned Tribunal has neither considered the future prospects nor has assessed any income which he could have earned after his retirement. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the expenses incurred during treatment period between 11.11.90 to 17.11.90, the period in which, the deceased remained in the hospital for treatment. The learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- in all for the loss of consortium and love and affection. Thus considering these contentions, the awarded compensation requires re-consideration. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation taking multiplier of eight (8) i.e. remaining part of service but as the deceased was having good experience of teaching and at the time of accident, he was posted as Head Master in Government School. Taking into consideration, these facts, there were bright chances of earnings by way of teaching after retirement. For that, minimum Rs.450/- per month by way of teaching income can be assessed and after deducting ⅓rd for his own expenses at least Rs.300/- he could have spared to family even after retirement if he would have remained alive, taking into consideration the age of 50 years at the time of accident, a suitable multiplier of 11 is just and reasonable. Thus, considering the remaining period of 3 years, the compensation under this head comes to 300 x 12 x 3 =Rs.10,800/- which they are entitled to receive. With regard to future prospects, the appellant-claimants have not produced any reliable evidence in this respect, therefore, no consideration is required but Rs.10,800 is just and reasonable to add under the head of loss of dependency. Likewise the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount during the tenure of treatment, in which, the deceased was under treatment. Certainly the claimants have incurred a lot in providing reach diet, fruits and transport expenses. Thus, Rs.10,000/- is just and proper for this aspect. In the present case, the claimants are old parents, widow and children of the deceased. There all were stated to be dependent on the income of the deceased. They have suffered loss of service to the parents and consortium and proper guardianship to the children and widow claimant has to bear loss of her her husband taking into consideration the amount awarded Rs.15,000/- is not found appropriate and it is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- which comes to Rs.25,000/-. 21. They have suffered loss of service to the parents and consortium and proper guardianship to the children and widow claimant has to bear loss of her her husband taking into consideration the amount awarded Rs.15,000/- is not found appropriate and it is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- which comes to Rs.25,000/-. 21. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, total enhancement of amount comes to Rs.10,800 + 10,000 + 10000= Rs.30,800/- is just and reasonable. The claimant-appellants will be further entitled to receive interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount, thus, after adding enhanced amount, the compensation comes out Rs.2,59,142/-. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal No.3/1995 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal No. 103/1995 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and awarded compensation of Rs.2,28,342 is enhanced by Rs.30,800/- that comes out to Rs.2,59,142/-. Further the claimants will be entitled to receive interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the enhanced amount within a period two months from the date of order, failing which the claimants will be entitled to receive the same as per law. Rest of the judgment is confirmed. No order as to costs.Appeal No. 102/1995 Partly allowed/Appeal No. 3/1995 Dismissed. *******