JUDGMENT : Dr. Satish Chandra, J.- All the three appeal have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Petition No. 67, 69 and 66 of 1995. All the appeals pertain to one accident and members of one family, hence they are being decided by this consolidated judgment and order for the sake of convenience. 2. To appreciate the contention of the parties, the facts in extenso requires to be noticed and are that on 28.1.1995 deceased Dr. Rananjay Singh, who was a Lecturer in P.G. College, Sitapur, was going in a jeep no. USX 1042 to Lucknow to participate in a Tilak ceremony along with family members including daughters, namely, Kumari Ritu, aged about 19 years; and Kumari Anshika alias Toshi (13 years). When the jeep reached near Karbalapurwa, it collided with a Truck No. URD 7041, which was coming from the opposite side. The Truck driver was driving carelessly and negligently. There was a head collusion in the mid of the road and both the vehicles were damaged. All the passengers travelling in the jeep including Dr. Rananjay Singh, Kumari Ritu; and Kumari Anshika suffered injuries and ultimately died. 3. The Tribunal in its impugned order after examining the eye-witness Sri Amarjeet Singh who was travelling in another jeep in question and other material available on record, observed that the accident took place due to head collision for which both the vehicles were responsible. Both the vehicles namely jeep and truck in question were driven by the drivers who were holding the valid licenses. Both the vehicles were insured from the appellant's insurance company. So, entire compensation will have to be paid by the appellant insurance company. 4. Deceased Dr. Rananjay Singh was a lecturer in a Post-Graduate College, Sitapur and was claimed that he was getting salary of Rs. 8640/- per month, in addition to the income from agriculture but after examining the documents, the Tribunal took the salary income of Rs. 8300/- per month for the purpose of computation of the compensation. One-third i.e. 2,766/- was deducted for self expenditure. Thus, the Tribunal took Rs. 5530/- for the purpose of net compensation. By looking the age of 47 years, the multiplier of ''13' was applied and finally Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,62,680/- as compensation. 5. 8300/- per month for the purpose of computation of the compensation. One-third i.e. 2,766/- was deducted for self expenditure. Thus, the Tribunal took Rs. 5530/- for the purpose of net compensation. By looking the age of 47 years, the multiplier of ''13' was applied and finally Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,62,680/- as compensation. 5. In the case of Kumari Ritu, it was submitted before the Tribunal that she was unmarried but it was claimed that she was having the income of Rs. 700/- per month from tuition. After examining the entire evidence and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal took the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 for self expenditure, Rs. 10,000/- per annum was taken for the purpose of compensation. By looking the age of 19 years and the age of claimants between 45-50 years, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 13' and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Deceased Kumari Ritu died after some treatment, so Rs. 15,000/- was allowed for medical expenses. Thus, a total of Rs. 1,45,000/- was awarded to the claimants-respondents pertaining to the death of Kumari Ritu. 6. Regarding Kumari Anshika alias Toshi, the Tribunal observed that she was 13 years old and was not having any regular source of income. Looking the age of the deceased, the Tribunal took notional income and a total of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation. No deduction was made as she was living with her parents. Thus, Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation pertaining to the death of the deceased Kumari Anshika Toshi. 7. In all the claim petitions, the Tribunal has also awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim at the rate which was prevailing in the Bank at that time. The claimants-respondents have filed no appeal for enhancement of the compensation but being aggrieved, the insurance company has challenged all the awards given by the Tribunal in the present appeals. 8. During the course of arguments, Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has not disputed the facts and quantum awarded by the Tribunal. He confined his arguments by stating that all the deceased were gratuitous passengers. No premium was charged for gratuitous passengers. Therefore, it is not required that policy of insurance should cover risk of the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. He confined his arguments by stating that all the deceased were gratuitous passengers. No premium was charged for gratuitous passengers. Therefore, it is not required that policy of insurance should cover risk of the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. Such passengers are not required to be insured. In the instant case, no premium was charged for the said passengers. However, on specific query by the Bench, he accepted that policy was for a third party insurance but he repeatedly submitted that their policy does not cover liability of gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (M.S.Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others; (Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and another); and United India Insurance Company Ltd., Simla v. Tilak Singh and others 9. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to proceed while imposing the interest from the date of institution of claim petition in the light of the fact that the delay was caused by claimant in disposal of the claim petition. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded only 50% liability through its impugned award as against the appellant's insurance company instead of wrongful imposition of entire liability. Lastly, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents relied upon the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 11. We heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 12. Needless to mention that the term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'Damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. 13. The "Rule of Law" requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. 'Compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay: it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined and given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss; or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received; recompense for whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damages', although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term 'compensation' as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered; 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money, claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. 'Compensation' is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. 14. In the instant case, the facts pertaining to the accident are not disputed. The amount of compensation is also not disputed. The main thrust of the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased were gratuitous passengers. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. 14. In the instant case, the facts pertaining to the accident are not disputed. The amount of compensation is also not disputed. The main thrust of the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased were gratuitous passengers. From the record, it appears that the deceased were not passengers, they were the family members who were going to participate a Tilak ceremony. In the instant case, the jeep was hired to carry the family members to Lucknow. The jeep was not the goods vehicle and was owned by Sri Ajay Kumar Jaiswal who has provided the jeep to the deceased. 15. The ratio laid down in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the instant case due to peculiar facts and circumstances. It may also be mentioned that this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Bhueiadeen Kanoujia and others passed in FAFO No.751 of 2007 has dealt with the similar question where the deceased was going as pillion rider on the motorcycle. This Court observed that- 17. "nowhere the insurance company has produced any evidence that any premium was not paid in respect of the risk of pillion rider. When it is so, then we are of the view that the insurance company is liable to make the payment on account of the alleged accident which resulted the death of the driver as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle. However, the present appeal is pertaining to the pillion rider deceased Sri Diwali Lal @ Deepak Lal, son of the claimants. The driver of the motorcycle Late Sri Ram Naresh was having a valid driving license. From the record, it also appears that the motorcycle was owned by the father of the deceased. The insurance policy was between the insurance company and the father. So the deceased son is a third party and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on his death as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. During the course of arguments, other facts and quantum were not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant." 16. So the deceased son is a third party and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on his death as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. During the course of arguments, other facts and quantum were not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant." 16. Further, in the case of M.S.Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in such type of cases, doctrine of vicarious liability is applicable. 17. The Tribunal after examining the site-map of accident spot and eye-witness observed that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles, so both the vehicles are responsible for the award at the rate of 50-50% but the fact remains that both the vehicles were insured from the appellant insurance company, so ultimately it is the appellant's company who will have to pay the entire compensation either in the name of individual vehicle or jointly. 18. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each appeal looks reasonable, especially when the claimants-respondents have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 19. Moreover, there is no permission under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act which is required as per the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 20. In the light of above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the same are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 21. The Registry of this Court is directed to remit the amount deposited in this Court to the Tribunal for making payment to the claimant-respondent. All the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.