ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A Nos. 1500/2008; 1501/2008 filed by the claimants and MA Nos. 1077/2008; 1078/2008; and 1080/2008 filed by respondent No. 2/Insurance Company as all the appeals are arising out of one accident and also one award dated 5.1.2008 passed by MACT, West Nimar Mandleshwar in claim case No. 26/2007127,2007 and 28/2008. 2. Short facts of the case are that in the motor accident occurred on 13.1.2007 with tempo trax bearing registrarion No. MP 09- V/3139, which was being driven by driver, who passed away. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. In the said accident Kailashchandra, Gulabbai and Khubchand, who were travelling in the said vehicle died. The accident occurred because of dashing with a static road roller. Therefore, claim petitions were filed by the claimants under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In all the claim appeals the amount awarded is as under: Case No. Name of deceased Amount awarded. MA No. 1499/2008 & Kailashchandra Rs.2,27,300/- MA No.1 077/2008 (Claim Case No. 26/07) MA No. 1500/2008 & Gulabbai Rs.1,12,000/- MA No.1 078/2008 (Claim Case No. 27/07) MA No. 1501/2008 & Khubchand Rs.1,00,000/- MA No.1080/2008 (Claim Case No. 28/07) 3. In all claim appeals filed by the claimants it is submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It is submitted that in the matter of deceased Kailashchandra, income has been assessed @ Rs. 2200/per month and the multiplier of 11 has been applied whereas it should have been 13. It is submitted that deduction of 1/3rd amount is on higher side. Similarly, in the matter of deceased Gulabbai, the income has been assessed on notional basis and in the matter of deceased Khubchand the income has been assessed @ Rs. 18,000/- per year. Learned counsel submits that in all the cases income of the deceased persons assessed, is on lower side. It is also submitted that on other heads the amount awarded is also on lower side. 4. Mr. Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, submits that in all the cases so far as amount of compensation is concerned, the amount awarded is just and proper and requires no interference. It is also submitted that on other heads the amount awarded is also on lower side. 4. Mr. Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, submits that in all the cases so far as amount of compensation is concerned, the amount awarded is just and proper and requires no interference. So far as liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, learned counsel submits that Insurance Company is not liable for compensation firstly because the deceased persons were occupants of the vehicle for which respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable. In the alternative learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is otherwise also not liable as the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose as the persons who sustained injuries and passed away were travelling after taking the vehicle on hire. It is submitted that this fact is well established from the evidence of Rewaram (PW 2) and Shiromanibai (PW 1). For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sm. Bhuribai and ors. v. Nand Kishore and ors. [2009 (2) TAC 775 (MP) wherein vehicle insured for private purpose but used for commercial purpose, Division Bench of this Court has held that breach of policy conditions established and the Insurance Company is held not liable to pay. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukhni Mahto and ors. [2009 (3) TAC 158) wherein Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court, while dealing with the case wherein vehicle taken on hire by claimants, met with an accident on way to hospital, it was held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel submits that from the evidence it is proved that all the deceased persons were from the category of below poverty line, therefore, their income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is also submitted that in MA No. 1499/2008 the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses is on higher side keeping in view the number of dependents. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid position of law, appeals filed by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company be allowed and the appeals filed by the claimants be dismissed. . 5. Mr. It is also submitted that in MA No. 1499/2008 the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses is on higher side keeping in view the number of dependents. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid position of law, appeals filed by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company be allowed and the appeals filed by the claimants be dismissed. . 5. Mr. V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that it is true that deceased persons were occupants but in view of latest circular dated November 16, 2009 issued by Insurance Company Regulatory and Development Authority, the Insurance Company is-not liable in respect of occupant (s) carried in a Private Car. Learned counsel further submits that since no evidence was adduced by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company to prove that offending vehicle was being used on hire or reward, therefore, respondent No.2 is liable for payment of compensation. So far as amount of award is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is just and proper and requires no interference. 6. In each of the aforesaid cases, break up of the amount is as under: M.A No. 1499/2008 :- (Deceased Kailashchandra) Loss of dependency Rs. 2,17,800.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Love and affection Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500.00 Total Rs.2,27,300.00 M.A No. 1500/2008 (Deceased Gulabbai): Loss of dependency Rs.1,10,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs.1,12,000.00 M.A No. 1501/2008 :- (Deceased Khubchand) :- . Loss of dependency Rs. 96,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Love and affection Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs. 1,00,000.00 7. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the income of deceased persons in all the cases assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side which ought to have been Rs. 2,500/- per month in each of the cases. In other heads also the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be on lower side. Similarly, in MA No. 1499/2008 multiplier 11 has wrongly been applied as the deceased was 50 years of age. Similarly, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses in this case is on higher side. In view of this, appellants shall be entitled for the following amount in each case. M.A. No. 1499/2008:- (Deceased Kailashchandra) Loss of dependency Rs. 2,60,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of Consortium Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of love & affection Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. Similarly, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses in this case is on higher side. In view of this, appellants shall be entitled for the following amount in each case. M.A. No. 1499/2008:- (Deceased Kailashchandra) Loss of dependency Rs. 2,60,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of Consortium Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of love & affection Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 2.85.000.00 M.A. No. 1500/2008 (Deceased Gulabbai) Loss of dependency Rs.2,20,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 2.40,000.00 M.A. No. 1501/2008 :- (Deceased Khubchand) Loss of dependency Rs. 1,60,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 1,80,000.00 8. Thus, in all the three cases, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,85,000.00 in M.A. No. 1499/2008; Rs. 2,40,000.00 in M.A. No. 1500/2008 and Rs. 1,80,800.00 in M.A. No. 1501/2008 instead of Rs. 2,27,300.00 in M.A. No. 1499/2008-; Rs. 1,12,000.00 in M.A. No. 1500/2008 and in M.A. No.1501/2008 Rs. 1,00,000.00. So far as liability of respondent No.2 Insurance' Company is concerned, it is true that the deceased persons were occupants, however, keeping in view the latest circular dated November 16,2009 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, the Insurance Company is liable in respect of occupant (s) carried in a Private car and Pillion Rider carried on Two wheeler as is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. 9. So far as contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation because the deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, which was hired, it appears that all the occupants were going to attend "KUMBHA MELA" at Allahabad. In cross-examination learned counsel for respondent No.2 has tried to establish that offending vehicle was taken on hire by Premdas Giri Maharaj (Mahatma) and all the deceased persons were his followers. There is nothing on record to show that deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle by paying the fare. The Insurance Company has appointed the Investigator who has not been examined. Similarly, Premdas Girl Maharaj (Mahatma) for whom it has been alleged that offending vehicle was hired by him, was not examined. On the contrary, Mansharam, husband of respondent No. 1 was examined has specially stated that the offending vehicle was not taken on hire. 10. The Insurance Company has appointed the Investigator who has not been examined. Similarly, Premdas Girl Maharaj (Mahatma) for whom it has been alleged that offending vehicle was hired by him, was not examined. On the contrary, Mansharam, husband of respondent No. 1 was examined has specially stated that the offending vehicle was not taken on hire. 10. It is true that if the offending vehicle is a private vehicle and is being used for commercial purpose then the Insurance Company is not liable but the burden lies upon the Insurance Company to prove the fact. There is ample evidence on record which goes to show that the offending vehicle was not taken on hire by the deceased persons, therefore, learned Tribunal committed no error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals filed by the claimants/appellants are allowed in part and M.A. Nos. 1077/2008; 1078/2008; and 1080/2008 filed by respondent No. 2/Insurance Company are dismissed. Appellants are entitled for further amount as stated herein below. S. No. M.A. No. Amount Enhanced amount Total awarded 1. 149912008 2,27,300.00 57,700.00 2,85,000.00 2. 1500/2008 1,12,000.00 1,28,000.00 2,40,000.00 3. 1501/2008 1,00,000.00 80,000.00 1,80,000.00 In all the appeals amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in M.A. No. 1499/2008 and 50% 50% of 80% in M.A. Nos. 1500/2008 and 1501/2008 and in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellants are residing, with the condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Accounts of appellants No.1, in MA. No. 1499/2008 and in separate S.B. accounts in other appeals which shall be opened by the appellants from where appellants can withdraw the amount as per their needs. However, on an application by the appellants this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellants. 12. A copy of this order be kept in MA Nos. 1500/2008; 1501/2008; 1077/2008; 1078/2008; and 1080/2008.