JUDGMENT : Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 68 of 1998 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur on 5.9.1998. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : The Appellants are the parents of the deceased Girish Pal who died in the motor accident on 31.7.1996 when the truck No. MKS 8443, in which he was travelling, dashed against stationary truck No. MP 23-B 0325 and truck No. MP 23-0611 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. MKS 8443 by its driver. The Appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,51,000. They pleaded that deceased was earning Rs. 30,000 per month out of which he was paying monthly instalment of Rs. 17,000 to finance company, Rs. 2,000 to a driver and Rs. 5,000 towards the maintenance of a vehicle which he had purchased on loan and thus the deceased used to spend Rs. 6,000 on his family. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver) remained ex parte. Respondent No. 3 insurance company while admitting the factum of insurance denied its liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the said truck, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal determined that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. After deducting 50 per cent towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of parents was worked out to Rs. 2,000 per month and Rs. 24,000 per annum. Tribunal applied multiplier of 3 and amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 72,000. By adding a further sum of Rs. 15,000 under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 87,000. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal further held that Respondent No. 3 insurance company was liable to pay compensation. 3. As stated above, the Appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas the insurance company Respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objection for exonerating on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger in a goods vehicle and his liability was not covered under the insurance policy. 4. Mr. 3. As stated above, the Appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, whereas the insurance company Respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objection for exonerating on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger in a goods vehicle and his liability was not covered under the insurance policy. 4. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing low income of the deceased and selecting a lower multiplier and thus a low compensation has been awarded. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, opposed these arguments. He argued that insurance company was not liable to pay compensation because the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger in the goods vehicle. He prayed for exonerating the insurance company by allowing the cross-objection filed in the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. 7. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was spending Rs. 6,000 per month on the family. This fact has been proved by Prem Pal (AW 1) in para 8 of his evidence in clear words. He has clearly admitted that the personal expenses of the deceased was included in this amount. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. We accept the contents of pleadings also evidence of AW 1, Prem Pal that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 per month. 8. So far as multiplier of 3 is concerned, that appears to be on the lower side. Looking to the age of the claimants i.e., 65 years (age of both claimants) and the age of the deceased i.e., 27 years, we deem it appropriate to use the multiplier of 5. 9. Accordingly, we re-compute the compensation. As per the monthly income of Rs. 6,000, the annual income comes to Rs. 72,000. By deducting 50 per cent for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs. 36,000. By applying the multiplier of 5 to the said annual dependency of Rs. 36,000, the compensation is worked out to Rs. 1,80,000. By adding a further sum of Rs. 6,000, the annual income comes to Rs. 72,000. By deducting 50 per cent for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs. 36,000. By applying the multiplier of 5 to the said annual dependency of Rs. 36,000, the compensation is worked out to Rs. 1,80,000. By adding a further sum of Rs. 5,000 under the other heads, the total amount of compensation is worked out to Rs. 1,85,000. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 87,000. By deducting the aforesaid amount from Rs. 1,85,000, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 98,000. Accordingly we hold that the Appellants-claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 98,000 more as the enhanced amount of compensation on account of death of deceased Girish Pal in the motor accident. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 10. Now we shall decide the question of liability. Admittedly, Appellants pleaded in para 1 of the claim application that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in truck No. MKS 8443. One Avinash Rai has been examined as AW3. He was also a passenger in the said vehicle. He deposed that on the date of incident, he was travelling in truck No. MKS 8443. The deceased was also travelling with him. This truck dashed against the stationary truck near Mana-Basti. He has categorically admitted in clear words that they had paid fare for travelling in the truck. He further admitted in cross-examination that it is wrong to say that they were travelling in truck as gratuitous passengers. If the pleadings of the claimants contain that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the goods vehicle and it further comes in clear words in the evidence of their own witness (AW 3) that the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger, then nothing more is required to prove this fact. The insurance policy has been filed as Exh. Dl. The policy covers the risk of non-fare paying passenger under IMT 14 for which a premium of Rs. 75 has been realized by the insurer. The insurance policy has been filed as Exh. Dl. The policy covers the risk of non-fare paying passenger under IMT 14 for which a premium of Rs. 75 has been realized by the insurer. Therefore, it is clear that if the deceased was travelling as a fare paid passenger, then his liability was not covered under IMT 14 which only covers the legal liability to non-fare paying passenger who are not employees of the insured (commercial vehicle only). Therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in fastening the liability on the insurance company for payment of compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellants-claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation is allowed in part. The amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs. 98,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The cross-objection filed by the insurance company Respondent No. 3 is allowed. Insurance company is exonerated and it is directed that Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to receive the enhanced amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is stated that the insurance company has paid certain amount in satisfaction of the impugned award. The insurance company shall be entitled to realize this amount (which it has paid/deposited) from the owner of the vehicle. 12. The appeal and the cross-objection are allowed to the extent indicated above. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.