Hon'ble MODY, J.—This Order shall also govern the disposal of MA Nos.2342/2007, 2344/2007, 2345/2007, 2346/2007 filed by the appellant and MA Nos.2808/2007, 2809/2007, 2827/2007 and 2828/2007 filed by the claimants as all the appeals are arising out of the award dated 08/05/2007 passed by II MACT, Alirajpur in various claim cases. 2. Short facts of the case are that claimants filed claim cases alleging that on 10/08/2004 deceased Sehari Ben, Bhuria Bhai, Vijay, Ramesh and Soni Ben were travelling in a truck bearing registration No.GJ-3/V/6557 in the capacity of labour. The said truck was being driven by respondent No.4/Ramesh rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No.5 and insured with the appellant. It was alleged that in an accident because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 all the passengers who were travelling as labourers died. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and amount of compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that since the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and the deceased were travelling as passenger, therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of insured policy, hence appellant is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim case filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 and other claimants and awarded compensation and directed appellant to pay and recover. Being aggrieved by the direction given by learned tribunal present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned tribunal came to the conclusion that offending vehicle was goods vehicle and deceased were travelling as passengers, therefore, it was found that there was breach of terms of the insurance policy. It is submitted that in the circumstance, there was no justification on the part of learned tribunal in directing the appellant to pay the compensation and recover the same. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shankarlal MACD 2008 (2) (M.P.) 673 wherein this Court has held that in case of breach of condition of policy as passenger travelling in tractor, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shankarlal MACD 2008 (2) (M.P.) 673 wherein this Court has held that in case of breach of condition of policy as passenger travelling in tractor, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalu in MA No.866/2003 decided on 16/06/2009 whereby after placing reliance on a decision in the matter of Bhav Singh vs. Savirani 2008 (I) MPLJ 72 this Court exonerated the insurance company. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ramkalibai in MA No.3531/2008 decided on 11/01/2011 whereby direction to pay and recover in a goods vehicle were set-aside. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni MACD 2009 (SC) 552 = 2009(2) CCR 1274 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a case where insurer has proved its non-liability, it cannot be compelled to pay compensation and recover the same from the insurance company. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the direction whereby appellant is directed to pay and recover the amount be set-aside. So far as appeals of claimants are concerned, learned counsel submits that amount awarded is just and proper which requires no enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submit that it is true that offending vehicle was the goods vehicle but the deceased were travelling for the safety of the goods as the track was loaded with powder and services of the labours were required for un-loading the offending vehicle. It is submitted that to prove the fact that there was violation of terms and conditions of policy, it was the duty of appellant to prove the policy and to adduce evidence that the terms of the policy has been violated. It is submitted that photocopy of the policy was filed by the respondents/claimants after obtaining the same from the record of criminal case. It is submitted that appellant neither submitted the copy of policy nor adduce any evidence. It is submitted that photocopy of the policy was filed by the respondents/claimants after obtaining the same from the record of criminal case. It is submitted that appellant neither submitted the copy of policy nor adduce any evidence. In the circumstance learned tribunal committed no error in directing the appellant to pay and recover the compensation. Learned counsel submits that even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that it was the goods vehicle, then too, the learned tribunal committed no error in directing the appellant to pay and recover. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur 2004 ACJ 428 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that the risk of passengers carried for hire or reward or gratuitously in a goods vehicle is not covered and insurance company is not liable for death of any such passenger, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that term "any person" in view of 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of goods or his authorized representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise, as no premium has been paid for them by the owner, however, insurance company was directed to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant and recover the amount from the owner in execution proceedings. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Zaharulnisha 2008 AIR SCW 3251 wherein it is held that liability of third party is statutory. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chhaniya 2010 ACJ 1020 wherein this Court has held that learned tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover from the insurer. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submit that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and appeal filed by the respondents/claimants be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced adequately. 5. From perusal of record, it is evident that ample evidence is on record in shape Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6 which goes to show that offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and persons who were travelling were the passengers. 5. From perusal of record, it is evident that ample evidence is on record in shape Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6 which goes to show that offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and persons who were travelling were the passengers. It has also been found by the learned tribunal that they were travelling in the offending vehicle as passengers as they used to travel in truck for labour purpose. 6. In all the claim cases claimants has examined Dhanna AW/1, Dukhai AW/2, Pemla AW/3, Maansingh AW/4 and Dhashariya AW/5. Authenticated copy of the FIR has been filed by the respondent No.3 which is duly notarized. True copy of the policy has also been filed by the respondent No.3 but no evidence has been adduced to avoid the liability while the offending truck was insured. In all the 5 appeals which has been filed by the appellant and 4 appeals has been filed by the claimants. In MA No.2243/2007 wherein claimants are Durabai and others appeal arising out of claim case No.131/2006 and deceased is Bhuria aged 25 years learned tribunal has assessed the income @ Rs.1,500/- per month and after taking into consideration 1/3rd income and after applying the multiplier of 16 learned tribunal assessed loss of dependency as Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on other heads. Since accident was of the year 2004, therefore, this Court is of the view that income ought to have assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month. Since amount awarded is on lower side, therefore, claimants has also filed appeal No.2809/2007. Thus, in MA No.2343/2007 and 2809/2007 respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 2,56,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,81,000/- Total 7. In view of this, appeal filed by the claimants is allowed holding that claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,81,000/- instead of Rs.2,02,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.79,000/-. 8. In MA No.2345/2007 wherein claimant is Dhanna and the appeal filed by the claimants is 2828/2007 deceased is Ramesh aged 19 years and learned tribunal has assessed the income @ Rs.2,000/- per month and taken loss of dependency as 1/3rd i.e. Rs.8,000/- and applied the multiplier of 16. The enhanced amount is Rs.79,000/-. 8. In MA No.2345/2007 wherein claimant is Dhanna and the appeal filed by the claimants is 2828/2007 deceased is Ramesh aged 19 years and learned tribunal has assessed the income @ Rs.2,000/- per month and taken loss of dependency as 1/3rd i.e. Rs.8,000/- and applied the multiplier of 16. Since deceased was bachelor, therefore, half of his income ought to have been taken as loss of dependency and after applying the multiplier of 16 loss of dependency ought to have been assessed. Claimants are entitled for the following amount as compensation :- Rs. 1,92,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,07,000/- Total 9. In view of this, appeal filed by the claimants is allowed holding that claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/- instead of Rs.1,30,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.77,000/-. 10. In MA No.2344/2007 wherein the claimants is Dharshaia of which cross appeal is 2827/2007. The deceased was Vijay aged 5 years and the claim case No.132/2006. Learned tribunal assessed income @ Rs.15,000/- per year and has taken loss of dependency as half and applied multiplier of 10 which is on lower side. After taking into consideration notional income @ Rs.15,000/-per year and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses loss of dependency ought to have been assessed @ Rs.10,000/- per year and multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied, thus, appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,70,000/- Total 11. In view of this, appeal filed by the claimants is allowed holding that claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- instead of Rs.75,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.95,000/-. 12. In MA No.2342/2007 wherein the claimants is Maansingh and deceased is wife aged 19 years and is arising out of claim case No.130/2006 of which counter appeal is 2808/2007. Learned tribunal has assessed the income on notional basis and after taking one half as loss of dependency has applied the multiplier of 16 and has awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and total amount which comes to Rs.1,25,000/- which appears to be on lower side. Learned tribunal has assessed the income on notional basis and after taking one half as loss of dependency has applied the multiplier of 16 and has awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and total amount which comes to Rs.1,25,000/- which appears to be on lower side. In case of Maansingh income ought to have been assessed @ Rs.2,000/- per month and after deducting one half the amount ought to have been calculated which comes as under :- Rs. 1,92,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,07,000/- Total 13. In view of this, appeal filed by the claimant is allowed holding that claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/- instead of Rs.1,25,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.82,000/-. 14. In MA No.2346/2007 wherein the claimant is Pemla and appeal is arising out of claim case No.124/2006. Learned tribunal assessed the compensation Rs.1,22,000/- on account of death of daughter aged 16 years. Since no cross appeal has been filed on behalf of claimant, therefore, it is not required to be examined the adequacy of the awarded amount. 15. Since the Insurance Company who is appellant in 5 appeals has not led any evidence to avoid the liability and offending vehicle is insured and till so far no amount has been paid by insurance company to the claimants, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant and also appeal filed by the claimants are allowed. The amount awarded is enhanced as stated above and the award is modified by enhancing the amount. So far as liability is concerned, the case is remanded back to the learned tribunal with a direction to appellant to adduced evidence to prove the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in each of the case on account of no fault liability and claimants shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned tribunal is directed that after giving an opportunity to the appellant to adduce the evidence and also after giving opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if any, to re-decide the liability of the appellant. Learned tribunal is directed that after giving an opportunity to the appellant to adduce the evidence and also after giving opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if any, to re-decide the liability of the appellant. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned tribunal on 19/09/2011. 16. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be kept in all the connected cases. C.C. as per rules.