ORDER (Per V.V.S.Rao, J.) These three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common order as they are in relation to the motor accident that occurred on 11.11.2001. C.M.A.No.1967 of2005 is filed by the claimants and C.M.A.No.3248 of 2005 is filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited (insurer, for brevity). Both these are against O.P.No.461 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No.31377 of 2005 (C.M.A No.4014 of 2009) is filed by insurer against O.P.No.232 of 2003, which was filed by a person who was injured in the accident. The insurer claims exoneration from the liability under the policy of insurance. In both the appeals, claimants seek enhancement of compensation. 2. The motor accident occurred on 11.11.2001 at 9.30 a.m. On that day, Boppudi Venkateswararao, Acharya Srinivas, M.Kumar and others were travelling in a TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 31M 778 from Gopalapatnam to Gajuwaka. The said vehicle belongs to M/s. Inturi Associates, a firm of Chartered Accountants, Visakhapatnam. When the vehicle reached Kakaninagar Bus Stop at 9.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, it dashed against a pole on the road resulting in injuries to the occupants of the car Venkateswararao suffered serious head injuries. He was shifted to Latha Hosptial, Gajuwaka and later to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. At 12.30 p.m., on the same day, he died due to grievous injuries. Acharya Srinivas sustained Injuries like contusion and lacerated injury below the left eye and he was shifted to Simhapuri Hospital for treatment. 3. The wife, minor son and parents of Venkateswararao instituted M.O.P.No.461 of 2002 claiming an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lakhs only) as compensation. They alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. They further allege that Venkateswararao was aged 29 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month as Manager of M/s. Inturi Associates and that he was earning Rs.13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand only) as municipal contractor at Gajuwaka. The claim was opposed by insurer denying the negligence of the driver and disputing the quantum of compensation. The insurer filed additional counter later contending that the policy does not cover if the vehicle is used for hire/reward and the vehicle was insured for personal use. 4. The claim was opposed by insurer denying the negligence of the driver and disputing the quantum of compensation. The insurer filed additional counter later contending that the policy does not cover if the vehicle is used for hire/reward and the vehicle was insured for personal use. 4. The wife and three witnesses deposed for the claimants and Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X.1 to X.6 were marked. Assistant Administrative Officer of Insurer was examined as KW.1 and marked the policy as EX.B.1. The tribunal rejected the plea of insurer and came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver. No finding was, however, recorded as to the plea of insurer seeking exoneration. Considering the evidence, the tribunal awarded Rs.2,40,000/-. While doing so, tribunal applied Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and took in to consideration an amount of Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) as notional income per annum and applied multiplier 18 for determining loss of dependency for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only), Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards funeral expenses are also granted. 5. Acharya Srinivas, the person who injured filed O.P.No.232 of 2003 before the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The insurer denied liability contending that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, and therefore, insurer stands exonerated. The injured gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 toA-3. Insurer examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and EX.A-2 wound certificate, the tribunal concluded that the injured suffered simple injuries and awarded Rs.11,000/(Rupees eleven thousand only). The insurer filed appeal with delay. By order, dated 05.11.2008 in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.4561 of 2005, the delay has been condoned. 6. The counsel appearing for the parties made their submissions touching upon the liability of the insurance company as well as the entitlement for the compensation as claimed. We have been taken through the evidence as well as the relevant decisions. From the pleadings before the tribunal and the submissions made before us, two points would arise for consideration, which are dealt with hereafter. Liability of the Insurer 7. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is owned by K. Ambica Prasad, first respondent in the O.Ps. From the pleadings before the tribunal and the submissions made before us, two points would arise for consideration, which are dealt with hereafter. Liability of the Insurer 7. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is owned by K. Ambica Prasad, first respondent in the O.Ps. The policy EX.B.1 would show that it is private car (zone A) policy B comprehensive" and certificate-cum-policy schedule is in Form No.51 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999. The policy is subject to endorsements 71, 22, 24, 19, 70 and is also subject to the following limitations: "use only for social, domestic and pleasure purpose and insured own business. The policy does not cover use for Hire and Reward, Organised racing, speed testing and carriage of goods (other than samples) in connection any trade or business or use for any purpose in connection with Motor Trade". Sections II and III of the "private car package policy" read as under. Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of:- (i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. (ii) damage to the property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured. 2. The company will pay all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. 3. In terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnity granted by this section to the insured, the company will indemnify any driver who is driving the vehicle on the insureds order with insureds permission provided that such driver shall as though he/she was the insured observe fulfil and be subject to the terms exceptions and conditions of the policy in so far as they apply. 4. 4. In the event of the death of any person entitled to indemnify under this policy the company will in respect of the liability incurred by such person indemnify his/her personal representative in terms of and subject to the limitations of this Policy provided that such personal representative shall as though such representative was the insured observe fulfill and be subject to the terms exceptions and conditions of this policy in so far as they apply. 5. The company may at its own option (A) arrange for representation at any inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any death which may be the subject of indemnify under this policy - and (B) undertake the defence of proceedings in any Court of Law ca Prasad (V.V.S. Rao, J.) (D.B.) in respect of any act or alleged offence causing or relating to any event which may be the subject of indemnity under this policy. Section III - Personal Accident Cover for Owner - Driver The company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle, in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst driving or mounting into/dismounting from the vehicle insured or whilst travelling in it as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in: Nature of Injury Scale of Compensation (i) Death 100% (ii) Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye 100% (iii) Loss of one limb or sight of one eye 50% (iv) Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above 100% Provided always that (a) compensation shall be payable under only one of the items (i) to (iv) above in respect of the owner driver arising out of anyone occurrence and the total liability of the insurer shall not in the aggregate exceed the sum of Rs.2lakhs during anyone period of insurance. (b) No compensation shall be payable in respect of death or bodily injury directly or indirectly wholly or in part arising or resulting from or traceable to (1) intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide physical defect or infirmity or (2) an accident happening whilst such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. (b) No compensation shall be payable in respect of death or bodily injury directly or indirectly wholly or in part arising or resulting from or traceable to (1) intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide physical defect or infirmity or (2) an accident happening whilst such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. (c) Such compensation shall be payable directly to the insured or to his/her legal representatives whose receipt shall be the full discharge in respect of the injury to the insured. (2) This cover is subject to (a) the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein. (b) The owner-driver is the insured named in this policy. (c) The owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident. 8. A perusal of the above would show that even if the private car is insured comprehensively, whether or not it covers the third parties travelling in the car is matter of construing the policy. If the owner of the car has paid extra premium for the occupants of the car, certainly, the insurance company is liable. If no such extra premium is paid as per the policy subject to condition in Section III as above, it is only the owner - driver of the vehicle, who is covered, again subject to conditions as contained in proviso thereto. Section 1I(1) is to the effect that subject to limitations of liability as laid down in Schedule, the insurer will indemnify the insured in the event of accident. 9. The schedule of premium in Ex.B.1, policy, would show that premium was paid to cover the liability to public, liability for paid driver and for third party property damage (TPPD) for unlimited account. No extra premium was paid to cover passengers travelling in the vehicle. A contention is raised by the counsel appearing for the dependents of the deceased and the counsel for the injured that M/s. Inturi Associates is a chartered accountants firm in which the owner of the car Ambica Prasad was partner and that the deceased Venkateswararao and injured Acharya Srinivas and others were employees of M/s. Inturi Associates and they were travelling to attend to the work of Ambica Prasad who himself had the business. Ambica Prasad filed a counter, but, he did not choose to depose before the partners. Therefore, the self-serving evidence of P. W .4, who is a chartered accountant of M/s. Inturi Associates, cannot be relied on. There is no corroboration at all to show that the persons were travelling in the car to attend to the work of Ambica Prasad. Exs.A-8, A-10 are two income tax returns of the deceased Venkateswararao. The salary income from M/s.Inturi Associates has been shown. EX.A-8 was filed after the death by the mother of the assessee and Ex.A-10 was filed ten days prior to death. Therefore, much credence cannot be granted to these. P.W.4, who appears to be partner of the firm did not produce any evidence from his office to show that deceased was manager of his firm. Therefore, this Court is not able to accept the plea of the claimants that the deceased was employee of M/s.Inturi Associates or that employees of the said firm were travelling to attend to the firms business. 10. The question whether insurer is liable for the death of occupants of a private car in the event of accident even when extra premium is not paid, is no more res in tegra. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (1) 2007 (3) SCJ 498=2007 (1) An.W.R. 545 (SC) = (2007) 5 SCC 428 = AIR 2007 SC 1609 = 2007 (5) ALT 25.3 (DNSC), Supreme Court considered the question whether in the absence of a special contract, insurance company can be asked to pay the compensation awarded on the strength of the policy in terms of the Act. In the same case, Suresh Chandra Variyal, who was working as a Regional Manager of a Savings company, died in a motor accident on 14.6.1999. The car and driver were provided by the Government. The wife and daughter claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal determined Rs.7,20,000/- as compensation payable but held that insurance company was not liable as there was no special contract and that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle. The High Court of Uttaranchal reversed award of Tribunal placing reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh (2) (2004) 3 SCC 297 = AIR 2004 SC 1531 = 2004 (2) ALT 13.2 (DNSC). The High Court of Uttaranchal reversed award of Tribunal placing reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh (2) (2004) 3 SCC 297 = AIR 2004 SC 1531 = 2004 (2) ALT 13.2 (DNSC). Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by insurer that as there was no special contract and the policy was in terms of the Act policy, insurance company cannot be asked to pay the amount awarded. The Supreme Court elaborately considered the question and held that. We are thus satisfied that based on the ratio in Swaran Singh (supra), the insurance company cannot be made liable in the case on hand to pay the compensation first and to recover it from the insured, the owner of the vehicle. The deceased being an employee not covered by the Workmens Compensation Act, of the insured, the owner of the vehicle, has not to be covered compulsorily under the Act and only by entering into of a special contract by the insured with the insurer could such a person be brought under coverage. 11. In Branch Manage:, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kamareddy v. Kondakotla Saroja (3) 2008 (5) ALT 246 = 2008 (2) An.W.R. 314 (D.B.) =2008 (5) ALD288 (DB) (A.P.), a Division Bench of this Court considered whether insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for the passengers travelling in the motor vehicle, which is covered by Act policy. The Division Bench referred to Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company (Private) Limited (4) AIR 1977 SC 1735 and Meena Variyal (1 supra) and laid down that unless extra premium for the passengers who traveled in the vehicle is paid, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to satisfy the decree and pay the compensation. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the reported judgment are extracted hereunder. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshis case (4 supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the provisions of Sec. 95(A) and 95(B)(I) of the Act laid as under: "Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshis case (4 supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the provisions of Sec. 95(A) and 95(B)(I) of the Act laid as under: "Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under Section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act." The decisions upon which reliance is laid by the learned Counsel for the respondents - claimants are contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration to fix the liability on the Insurance Company. Further, the Supreme Court in Meena Variyals case (12 supra) after interpreting Section 147 of the Act accepted the ratio laid down in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshis case (13 supra). Once the Insurance Company under EX.A-5 cover note has not undertaken the liability by collecting extra premium for the passengers who travelled in the insured vehicle, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and it is only the respondent - owner of the vehicle who is liable to satisfy the decree and pay the compensation amount. 12. As noticed supra, no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of occupants of the car. Therefore, the insurer cannot be made liable and it is only the owner of the motor vehicle - first respondent; is liable to pay compensation. Payable compensation 13. In O.P.No.461 of 2002 filed by the dependents of deceased Venkateswara Rao, Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 as well as Exs.x1 to X3, A6 and A7, and came to the conclusion that claimants failed to produce satisfactory evidence with regard to income of the deceased. Placing reliance on Prabodh Chand Tyagi v Delhi Transport Corporation, Tribunal considered notional income and determined the compensation including loss of dependency at Rs.2,40,000/-. Learned Counsel for claimants in O.P.No.461 of 2002 has taken up through oral and documentary evidence, which was produced before the Tribunal. He has also relied on additional evidence sought to be brought on record vide miscellaneous application being M.A-C.M.A-M.P. No.3309 of 2005. 14. Learned Counsel for claimants in O.P.No.461 of 2002 has taken up through oral and documentary evidence, which was produced before the Tribunal. He has also relied on additional evidence sought to be brought on record vide miscellaneous application being M.A-C.M.A-M.P. No.3309 of 2005. 14. It is not necessary to receive additional evidence for rendering judgment based on the record available. Be that as it is, after perusing this evidence, we are convinced that the learned Tribunal was in error in determining the loss of dependency based on notional income as per II Schedule to the Act and ignoring the evidence on record. Be it noted that in every case decided based on the evidence, it is quite possible that the parties may bring in evidence, it may be admissible or inadmissible. Merely because there is more inadmissible evidence, a Judicial authority cannot ignore the admissible evidence and record conclusions on surmises. We are satisfied that the learned Tribunal ignored important evidence available on record. Therefore, insofar as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, we are inclined to set aside the award and consider the compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased based on the independent evidence. 15. The accident occurred on 11.11.2001. It was alleged that the deceased was Manager in a Chartered Accountant firm and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It was also alleged that he was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per annum by working as a contractor. P.W.1 who is wife of deceased and P.W.4 who is partner of the firm and also maternal uncle of the deceased, gave oral evidence. They also marked Exs.A4 salary certificate, A6 and A7 (registration granted by Gajuwaka Municipality) and Exs.X5 and X6, Income Tax returns. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are family members, and therefore, it is not safe to rely on their evidence. EX.X5 is Income Tax return, which was filed by the mother of the deceased after death of her son. If it is excluded, we are left with EX.X6 Income Tax return, which was filed by the deceased for the assessment year 1999-2000. As per this, he was drawing a salary of Rs.48,000/- per annum. The Income Tax return for the year 2001-2002 (Ex.X5) shows that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.72,000/- per annum. P.W.4 deposed that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from April 2001. As per this, he was drawing a salary of Rs.48,000/- per annum. The Income Tax return for the year 2001-2002 (Ex.X5) shows that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.72,000/- per annum. P.W.4 deposed that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from April 2001. Taking EX.X5 and evidence of P.W.4 into consideration, a reasonable inference can be drawn that though deceased was drawing an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, he was paid Rs.8,000/- with effect from April 2001. As the claimants produced a bunch of work orders issued by Gajuwaka Municipality as Ex.A1, on probabilities, we feel that determining salary of deceased at Rs.6,000/per month would be justified. Income Tax returns would show that deceased was born on 01.6.1973, and therefore, as on the date of death, he was about 29 years of age. As per the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (5) 2009 (4) SCJ 91 = (2009) 6 SCC 121, appropriate multiplier would be 17 and as held therein if the number of dependent family members 4 to 6, l/4th has to be deducted from the loss of dependency. The claimants would also entitled for non-pecuniary darnages by way of award on conventional figures. Keeping this factor into consideration, we proceed to determine compensation as below. 16. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12). Even if one-fourth has to be deducted in which event, it would be Rs.54,000/- (Rs.72,000/- Rs.18,000/-). Thus for the purpose of calculation, multiplicand would be Rs.54,000/-. This has to be multiplied with multiplier 17 and total loss of dependency would be Rs.9,18,000/- and to this we have to add Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to first claimant (wife), Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. As there was no evidence adduced regarding funeral expenses incurred or transportation charges, we are not inclined to award any amount under these heads. In all claimants would be entitled to Rs.9,48,000/-. There is no doubt that claimants have already withdrawn some amounts, which were deposited by the insurance company. Keeping this in view, we hold that claimants would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal till the date of payment of the amount, after deducting the amount already withdrawn by the claimants. 17. Keeping this in view, we hold that claimants would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal till the date of payment of the amount, after deducting the amount already withdrawn by the claimants. 17. Insofar as C.M.A- (SR) No.31377 of 2005 filed by insurance company against the award in O.P.No.232 of 2003 is concerned, in view of the holding on first point that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as there was no special contract, the appeal has to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, C.M.A- No.3248 of 2009 and CM.A. (SR) No.31377 of 2005 are allowed. C.M.A. N 0.1967 of 2005 is disposed of, modifying the award as indicated herein above but insurer would not be liable to pay compensation awarded herein above. It shall be open to claimants to recover the same from owner of TATA Sumo bearing No. AP 31M 778. There shall be no order as to costs.