Judgment Prakash Shrivastava, J. ( 1. ) This appeal has been filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 22.3.2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 243 of 2003. ( 2. ) The facts in narrow compass are that the deceased Kailash on 16.6.2002 was travelling in vehicle No. MP 13-E 1227 which turned turtle due to the accident as a result of which Kailash received injuries and died in the hospital. The appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000. The claim was opposed by the respondents. ( 3. ) Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed the award dated 22.3.2004. The Tribunal in the impugned award has found that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cattle or retail sale of vegetables. The Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was not proved, and presumed Rs. 15,000 annual income as per the Schedule, age of the deceased was found to be 30 years and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal calculated the contribution to the family as Rs. 10,000 and on applying the multiplier of 15 calculated the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal granted Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 6,000 for loss of love and affection to the children and Rs. 16,000 for medical expenses. In this way the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs. 1,81,000 along with 6 per cent simple annual interest from the date of the application. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his goods (vegetables) for the purpose of sale and since he was not travelling as owner of the goods in the goods vehicle, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. ( 4. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has recorded perverse finding in respect of the business of the deceased, income of the deceased and in respect of the fact that the deceased was not travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. ( 4. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has recorded perverse finding in respect of the business of the deceased, income of the deceased and in respect of the fact that the deceased was not travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. He further submitted that Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the positive evidence on record in respect of the income of the deceased and presuming the income of Rs. 15,000, as per the Schedule. He submitted that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in terms of various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. ( 5. ) As against this the learned counsel appearing for respondent insurance company submitted that the insurance company has rightly been absolved of the liability since the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle along with goods as owner of the goods. He further submitted that in the case of this nature insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the other respondent has also opposed the appeal on the ground that the income of the deceased has rightly been fixed by the Tribunal and there is no scope of enhancing the compensation amount. ( 6. ) I have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the original record. ( 7. ) It is not in dispute that Kailash has died in the accident caused by the vehicle No. MP 13-E 1227. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 4, during the relevant time. ( 8. ) The finding of the Tribunal that the appellants have failed to establish that the deceased Kailash on the date of accident was travelling in the vehicle along with his goods (vegetables) for sale in the market meaning thereby that the deceased was not travelling in the vehicle along with the goods as owner of goods has been challenged as perverse by the appellants. ( 9. ) A perusal of the award indicates that while arriving at this finding the Tribunal has not elaborately discussed the evidence. Tribunal has dealt with this issue along with the issue of involvement of deceased in the business of sale of vegetables. ( 9. ) A perusal of the award indicates that while arriving at this finding the Tribunal has not elaborately discussed the evidence. Tribunal has dealt with this issue along with the issue of involvement of deceased in the business of sale of vegetables. The two issues though may have some connection but are separate issues. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding as to whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his goods as owner of the goods, the evidence adduced by the parties on this basis needs to be considered. ( 10. ) A perusal of the claim petition indicates that the claimants have specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle along with the vegetables which he was taking to Dharampuri for sale. This specific pleading contained in para 23 of the claim petition has been denied by the respondent No. 4 generally for want of proof. There is no averment in the written statement that the insurance company is not liable because the deceased was not travelling in the vehicle along with his goods as owner of the goods. The written statement of insurance company is silent on this aspect. ( 11. ) Now coming to evidence adduced by the parties on this issue, appellant No. 1 Amrutbai, i.e., wife of the deceased has been examined as PW 2, who specifically stated that deceased was taking the green vegetables for sale to Dharampuri market in the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. In the cross-examination she has stated that her husband used to go in Matador to sell the vegetables in the market and used to pay charges for the same. Vakil Khan, PW 3, who was a co-traveller and the eyewitness stated that the deceased was taking the vegetables for sale in market and he had paid fare for himself as well as for the vegetables. He has even stated that deceased had probably paid Rs. 100 as fare since his goods were more. Kamal Kishore, PW 4, who is the wholesaler of the vegetables has stated that he used to sell the vegetables to the deceased for business. Respondents have failed to adduce any contrary evidence before the Tribunal. Kamal Kishore, PW 4, had proved the bills Exh. P23 to Exh. P26 issued by him. The Tribunal has disbelieved these bills. Kamal Kishore, PW 4, who is the wholesaler of the vegetables has stated that he used to sell the vegetables to the deceased for business. Respondents have failed to adduce any contrary evidence before the Tribunal. Kamal Kishore, PW 4, had proved the bills Exh. P23 to Exh. P26 issued by him. The Tribunal has disbelieved these bills. Even if these bills are ignored then also on the basis of the pleadings and oral evidence on record it is established that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question along with his goods (vegetables) for which he had paid the charges and he was taking these vegetables to the market for sale. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is found that Tribunal committed an error in recording that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased had booked his goods for transportation in the goods vehicle or had paid the charges for that. Tribunal has recorded the perverse finding that the deceased was not travelling in the truck as owner of his goods (vegetables). This finding of the Tribunal is not supported by evidence and while recording this finding Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record. ( 12. ) Section 147 (1) (b) (i) covers the liability in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), has held that term any person included in section 147 (1) by way of amendment in 1994 includes a third party as also the owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in a goods vehicle. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Baljit Kaur (supra), Division Bench of this court in the matter of Kesari Bai v. Dhanna, 2007 ACJ 1550 (MP), held the insurance company liable in the case of death of person travelling in goods vehicle along with his bag of wheat when the vehicle met with an accident. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Umrao Singh v. Bharatlal, 2007 (II) MPWN 108 , held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants travelling in trolley with his goods. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Umrao Singh v. Bharatlal, 2007 (II) MPWN 108 , held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants travelling in trolley with his goods. In somewhat similar circumstances the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Indarlal v. Vijay Kumar, 2009 ACJ 1077 (MP), held the insurance company liable in case of death of passenger in Matador, who was travelling with his load of vegetables. ( 13. ) It is worth noting that in the present case neither the insurance company pleaded in the written statement that the deceased was not travelling in Matador in question as owner of the goods nor did it lead any evidence to establish this fact. The Division Bench of this court while examining the similar issue in the similar circumstances in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Begumbai, 2006 ACJ 1964 (MP), held that: "(5) In our considered opinion on facts found and the findings recorded, insurance company cannot escape from its liability. There is ample evidence to support the stand taken by the claimants that deceased had hired the vehicle in question for carrying his goods, i.e., wheat, soyabean. It has come in the evidence of Begumbai, wife of the deceased, PW 1, Jakir Khan, son of deceased, PW 2, Shankar Lai, PW 3, a person who also had hired the vehicle for carrying his goods (wheat) and was travelling along with his goods. In the absence of any evidence tendered by the non-applicants in rebuttal, we have no hesitation in upholding the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue and accept the version of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. This fact is also duly corroborated by the report of investigator dated 1.4.1998, Exh. D2-C. (6) Once it is held that the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle along with his goods as an owner then in such case the insurance company cannot escape from its liability. In other words, the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), will apply against the insurance company and in favour of claimant and insured. We are unable to hold in favour of insurance company for want of any factual evidence that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in vehicle. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), will apply against the insurance company and in favour of claimant and insured. We are unable to hold in favour of insurance company for want of any factual evidence that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in vehicle. Neither there is any factual foundation nor evidence to sustain such finding." ( 14. ) Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) and submitted that the insurance company is not liable because the deceased was not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle. Such a submission cannot be accepted at this stage since no such defence was raised by insurance company before the Tribunal and it did not plead or adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle, therefore, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this point and no finding has been recorded. Thus, in the appeal insurance company cannot be permitted to raise the factual issue for the first time. Even otherwise, the evidence on record establish that deceased was travelling in Matador as owner of the goods along with his goods, therefore, the insurance company cannot escape the liability. ( 15. ) The reliance of the counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, 2008 ACJ 2144 (SC), is also misplaced since in that case the deceased who was a vegetable dealer was travelling in the truck for collecting empty vegetable boxes, therefore, the Apex Court held he was not travelling in the truck as owner of the goods, i.e., vegetables. Similarly, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalithabai, 2007 ACJ 2342 (Karnataka), relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company is of no help since in that case the court held that the personal effects or personal luggage carried by passenger travelling in motor vehicle will not come within the ambit of definition of goods. Ltd. v. Lalithabai, 2007 ACJ 2342 (Karnataka), relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company is of no help since in that case the court held that the personal effects or personal luggage carried by passenger travelling in motor vehicle will not come within the ambit of definition of goods. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Anasuyamma v. B. Narsinga Rao, 2008 ACJ 2385 (AP), relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company is also distinguishable on facts since in that case, it was found that deceased was not transporting any goods and was not accompanying them in the lorry at the time of accident and he was not found to be the owner of the goods at the time of the accident. Thus, none of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company help the respondent. ( 16. ) Thus, I find that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as owner of the goods along with his goods and the requirement of section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is satisfied. ( 17. ) So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was not engaged in the business of sale of vegetables. This finding of the Tribunal has also been challenged as perverse. The appellants in their claim petition pleaded that the deceased was in the business of sale of vegetables. They have pleaded that on the date of the accident the deceased was taking the vegetables from Sawer to Dharampuri for sale. The appellants have adduced the oral evidence in support of their claim. Amrutbai, PW 2, who is the wife of deceased has categorically stated that at the time of the accident the deceased was engaged in the business of sale of vegetables and on the date of the accident he was taking green vegetables to Dharampuri market from Sawer. In the cross-examination she has stated that her husband was only doing the business of sale of vegetables. Vakil Khan,PW 3, has supported the version of PW 2. He stated that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle and was taking the vegetables for retail sale. In the cross-examination she has stated that her husband was only doing the business of sale of vegetables. Vakil Khan,PW 3, has supported the version of PW 2. He stated that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle and was taking the vegetables for retail sale. Kamal Kishore, PW 4, who is in business of wholesale vegetables has stated that the deceased used to purchase wholesale green vegetables from him for sale in the market. He has also stated that the deceased used to purchase the vegetables from him during the market days. He has also proved the bills issued by him for sale of the vegetables. The respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was not involved in business of sale of vegetables. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, only by disbelieving the bills Exhs. P9 to P12 produced by the appellants held that the deceased was not involved in the business of sale of vegetables. Tribunal did not properly appreciate the oral evidence led by claimants in this regard. Even if bills Exhs. P9 to P12 are ignored then also from the oral evidence adduced by the claimants, it is established that the deceased was engaged in the business of retail sale of vegetables. ( 18. ) Since this court has found that the deceased was engaged in the business of sale of vegetables, therefore, the evidence led by the claimants in respect of the income of the deceased from the business of sale of vegetables become relevant. In the claim petition, the claimants pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000, in the oral evidence. Amrutbai, PW 2, stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 300 from the business of sale of vegetables. Since there is no documentary evidence of income of the deceased on record and the only evidence is the statement of PW 2 and in the appeal the appellants have restricted their claim to Rs. 5,00,000, therefore, it can be safely held that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 100 per day, therefore, his monthly income was Rs. 3,000 and the annual income was Rs. 36,000. Therefore, Tribunal committed an error in presuming the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000 per annum. ( 19. 5,00,000, therefore, it can be safely held that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 100 per day, therefore, his monthly income was Rs. 3,000 and the annual income was Rs. 36,000. Therefore, Tribunal committed an error in presuming the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000 per annum. ( 19. ) Claims Tribunal has calculated the contribution of deceased to the family as 2/3rd of his income by holding that the appellant must be spending 1/3rd as his income on himself. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Trans. Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), has laid down the guidelines for determining personal expenses for maintaining uniformity by holding that: "(14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandras case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (V4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (75th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six. (15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." ( 20. ) In the present case, the deceased was married person having five dependants including his wife, aged father and three minor children, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased will be 1/4th and not 73rd. The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. ( 21. ) So far as the multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased has been found to be 30 years by the Tribunal. The Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), has settled the controversy in respect of application of multiplier by holding that: "We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." ( 22. ) As per the Table given in para 19 of the judgment by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), multiplier of 17 will be applicable when the age of the deceased is between 26 and 30 years which is appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case, when the deceased is found to be 30 years of age by Tribunal. ( 23. ) In view of the aforesaid analysis, the calculation of the compensation amount will be as under: (a) Monthly income of the deceased: Rs. 3,000 (b) 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased: Rs. 750 (c) Contribution to the family (Rs. 3,000 - Rs. 750) = Rs. 2,250. (d) Total annual contribution to the family Rs. 2,250 x 12 = Rs. 27,000. (e) Compensation amount (Rs. 27,000 x 17) = Rs. 4,59,000. ( 24. ) In terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), on the conventional heads the amount awarded for loss to estate is enhanced to Rs. 7,500 and for loss of consortium enhanced to Rs. 7,500. The amount of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 16,000 granted by the Tribunal under the medical heads and Rs. 6,000 to the children for loss of love and affection is maintained. ( 25. ) In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,98,000 (Rs. 1,81,000 compensation granted by the Tribunal + Rs. 3,17,000 enhanced by this court). They will also be entitled for interest on the compensation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation the appellant No. 1 will receive Rs. 50,000 and appellant No. 2 will receive Rs. 35,000. The balance amount will be received in equal proportion by appellant Nos. 3 to 5 which will be kept in the fixed deposit in the nationalised bank in their name till they attain majority. ( 26. ) The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed.