Judgment Gangele, J. ( 1. ) Heard finally. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 28/9/2004 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 114 of 2003. ( 2. ) On 3/9/2003 deceased Manish Gupta had been travelling in a Matador, bearing registration No. DL 1L-E 1461 from Gohad to New Delhi along with his goods. When they reached near village Aurangabad on Mathura-Faridabad Road, Matador turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Matador. In the aforesaid accident Manish Gupta died on the spot. A report of the accident was lodged at the police station. ( 3. ) Subsequently, the claimants who are father and mother of the deceased Manish Gupta, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 31,25,000. The Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver had a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Matador was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3, hence, the insurance company, driver and owner of Matador are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,85,000 to the claimants. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded a proper compensation. Income of the deceased has also not been fixed properly and a proper multiplier has not been applied by the Claims Tribunal. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi, 2009 ACJ 2359 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC). Contrary to this, learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 3, has submitted that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured because the deceased had been travelling in Matador outside its cabin. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC). ( 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC). ( 5. ) Rammitra Gupta, PW 1, in his statement stated that he had been travelling along with the deceased Manish Gupta in Matador bearing registration No. DL 1L-E 1461 on 2.9.2003. Matador turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Matador. A report of the accident was lodged at the police station. In his cross-examination he stated that Manish Gupta had been travelling in Matador as owner of the goods (seeds). Jagdish Prasad Gupta, AW 2, who is father of deceased Manish Gupta, in his evidence stated that his son had gone to Delhi along with his seeds (varsam). His son was a businessman. He used to do business of grain. On behalf of insurance company, Lalit Kishore Ekka, NAW 1, was examined. He deposed that deceased was travelling in the vehicle and the risk of driver and cleaner only was covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Copy of F.I.R., which was lodged by Rammitra Gupta, PW 1, has been filed as Exh. P1. It has been mentioned therein that Manish Gupta and Rammitra Gupta, both had been travelling in Matador and they were sitting in the back side of Matador. From the evidence of the witnesses and the version in the F.I.R., it is clear that deceased had been travelling in Matador and they were sitting in back side of Matador. He was not travelling inside the cabin of Matador. ( 6. ) Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC), has held as under with regard to risk of a passenger who has not been travelling in cabin of the vehicle: "The owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle...The admitted plea of the respondents themselves in one of the cases was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs. 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act." In such circumstances, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, because the insurance company has not filed any appeal hence the cross-objection against the owner could not be held maintainable in view of Parma Lal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1516 and Division Bench of this court in the case of Shazadi Begum v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 1978 MP 20 . But the insurance company is not liable for payment of enhanced compensation. ( 7. ) With regard to quantum of compensation the Claims Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 36,000 per annum. The claimants have neither filed any account book about the business of the deceased nor it has been stated that deceased had been paying income tax. In view of aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000 per annum. ( 8. ) With regard to dependency, because the claimants are mother and father of the deceased, hence, the dependency, in my opinion could be fixed at 50 per cent as per the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), where the Honble Supreme Court with regard to dependency, has held that any rigid rule or formula with regard to applying the dependency cannot be applied with universal application, which is as under: "(6) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that there cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the percentage or quantum of deduction. The Tribunal and the High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold that 50 per cent deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the High Court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this court such a grievance cannot be raised. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the High Court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this court such a grievance cannot be raised. It is also submitted that multiplier of 18 as adopted is on the higher side. (7) What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after his marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." The aforesaid judgment has further been relied by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Trans. Corpn. v. Sarojamma, 2008 ACJ 1619 (SC). Honble Supreme Court further in the case of Kamla Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., MACD 2008 (2) 420, with regard to dependency has held as under: "(12) There was one other point which was raised by Mr. Rai regarding the assessment of the loss of dependency which according to him should not have been taken as 50 per cent but one-third as is generally taken in similar cases. On this point, we are in agreement with Mr. Rai and we feel that both the forums below took a wrong view of the matter and that loss of dependency should have been taken as 1/3rd and not 50 per cent as has been awarded." Further the Honble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, 2009 ACJ 690 (SC), has held as under with regard to dependency: "(18) On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50 per cent) if he was a bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point." ( 9. ) Considering the above principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and the facts of the case, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to fix dependency at 50 per cent. Thus, after fixing 50 per cent dependency the annual loss of income to the claimants on account of death of Manish Gupta comes to Rs. 18,000 per year. The Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which appears to be just and proper. After applying the aforesaid multiplier, the total loss of income to the claimants comes to (Rs. 18,000 x 15) = Rs. 2,70,000. Claimants are also entitled to Rs. 30,000 under other heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh). The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,85,000. Hence, the claimants-appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,15,000.00 (rupees one lakh fifteen thousand), which shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim application till realization. The appeal is allowed to the extent stated herein above. However, as held above, the deceased had been travelling in back side of Matador, in such circumstances, the insurance company will not be liable for payment of enhanced amount of compensation. Up to the above extent the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is allowed. Rest of the terms and conditions shall be the same as fixed by the Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.