JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 837 of 2010 which is the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 against the award dated 28.1.2010 passed by M.A.C.T., Ratlam in Claim Case No. 13 of 2009 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and in a case of death of Chhote Khan which took place on 7.12.2008 learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,64,000 and deducted 50 per cent on account of contributory negligence and also exonerated the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. M.A. No. 829 of 2010 has been filed alleging that amount awarded is on lower side and deduction of 50 per cent amount on account of contributory negligence is illegal while M.A. No. 837 of 2010 is filed against exoneration of respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Since M.A. No. 837 of 2010 is also against the same order, therefore, Mr. R.J. Pandit is requested to make appearance on behalf of Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. in M.A. No. 837 of 2010 also. 2. Short facts of the case are that deceased Chhote Khan who was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6 was travelling on a truck bearing No. MP 09-KC 5008 which was going from Bhopal to Indore on 7.12.2008. The said truck was being driven by deceased Chhote Khan, owned by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. Along with deceased Chhote Khan, one Jitendra was cleaner who was travelling at the relevant time. The truck met with accident with another truck which was coming from Bhopal bearing No. MP 09-KD 5497 which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. Undisputedly it was head-on collision in which Chhote Khan died, against which claim petition was filed. The claim petition was contested by the respondents on various grounds. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,64,000 and deducted 50 per cent amount on the ground that deceased Chhote Khan was equally liable for the accident. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were exonerated because they were the owner (sic and the insurer) of the vehicle which was being driven by deceased Chhote Khan. 4,64,000 and deducted 50 per cent amount on the ground that deceased Chhote Khan was equally liable for the accident. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were exonerated because they were the owner (sic and the insurer) of the vehicle which was being driven by deceased Chhote Khan. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, it was exonerated because the offending vehicle was not holding the permit at the relevant time. 3. Mr. R.N. Dave, learned counsel for appellant, argued at length and submits that learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,64,000. The learned counsel submits that income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month and after deducting 1/5th amount for personal expenses, multiplier of 15 has been applied. Learned counsel submits that income has been assessed on lower side which ought to have been assessed at Rs. 5,000 per month, in addition Rs. 100 per day as travelling allowance as death occurred on 7.12.2008. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal also committed error in awarding meagre amount under other heads and also committed error in deducting 50 per cent for contributory negligence while there is no evidence to prove that deceased was also negligent. It is submitted that spot map is Exh. P4 which shows that deceased was on his side when the accident took place. Learned counsel submits that eyewitness Jitendra was examined by the appellants who has stated in what circumstances the accident occurred. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and amount be enhanced and the findings relating to contributory negligence be set aside and the respondent No. 3 be also held liable for compensation as offending vehicle was insured. 4. Mr. Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 was not possessing the valid permit on the date of accident. It is submitted that date of accident is 7.12.2008. The permit was issued to the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 11.12.2008 to 10.11.2009. It is submitted that requisite amount was deposited by the respondent No. 2 on 28.11.2008. It is submitted that it was only a formality of issuance of permit which took time. It is submitted that date of accident is 7.12.2008. The permit was issued to the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 11.12.2008 to 10.11.2009. It is submitted that requisite amount was deposited by the respondent No. 2 on 28.11.2008. It is submitted that it was only a formality of issuance of permit which took time. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 be allowed and the part of the award whereby respondent No. 3 was exonerated be set aside. It is submitted that learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 3. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal has rightly held the deceased equally liable for the accident as it was head-on collision. It is submitted that appeal filed by respondent No. 2 be allowed. 5. Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submits that in the challan which was filed against respondent No. 1 who was driving the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No. 3 and owned by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 was also prosecuted for offence u/s 66/ 192A of Motor Vehicles Act which shows that offending vehicle was being plied without permit. It is submitted that since accident took place on 7.12.2008 while the permit was w.e.f. 12.12.2008, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount and rightly held that deceased was equally liable for the accident. It is submitted that both the appeals filed by the appellants be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that in any case respondent No. 5 is not liable for compensation and has rightly been exonerated. 7. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that even if it is found that deceased was liable for the accident, then, too, it is respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which can be held liable for compensation and if it is found that deceased was not negligent, then also respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held liable. 8. 2 and 3 which can be held liable for compensation and if it is found that deceased was not negligent, then also respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held liable. 8. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, since accident took place on 7.12.2008, therefore, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of truck driver at Rs. 3,000 per month which ought to have been Rs. 4,000 per month. It also appears that on other heads the amount awarded is on lower side. In view of this, following amount is assessed as compensation: 9. Thus compensation is assessed at Rs. 6,16,000 instead of Rs. 4,64,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,52,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. 10. So far as contributory negligence of the deceased is concerned, Jitendra was the eyewitness who was cleaner on the truck which was being driven by the deceased at the relevant time. Criminal case has been registered against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has not come forward to demonstrate that in what circumstances the accident occurred. Exh. P4 is the site map which shows that truck which was being driven by deceased was towards the left side and offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 1 was on wrong side, therefore only because it was head-on collision, without any further evidence it cannot be held that deceased was also responsible for the accident. In view of this, findings whereby the Tribunal has held that deceased was equally liable for the accident cannot be allowed to sustain. 11. So far as liability of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, Chapter 5 deals with control of transport vehicles. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down necessity for permits. As per sub-section (1) of section 66, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. 12. 12. Section 81 deals with duration and renewal of permits. As per sub-section (1) of section 81, the validity of the permit shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof. As per sub-section (5) of section 81 of the Act "where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87 and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded". In the present case the application submitted by the respondent No. 2 for temporary permit was w.e.f. 28.11.2008 to 27.3.2009 and the requisite fee was deposited by the respondent No. 2 on 28.11.2008 itself. Undisputedly the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 1 was duly insured. Respondent No. 3 is avoiding its liability on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing the valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was not having the permit. Exh. NA1 is the policy. Exh. NA2 is the certificate issued by R.T.A., Indore. Exhs. NA3 and NA4 are the letters written by respondent No. 3 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Exh. NA7 is the report of investigator. To prove these documents, Ved Vyas Tripathi was examined by respondent No. 3 as NAW 1 who has stated that offending vehicle was not possessing the permit and also respondent No. 1 was not possessing the driving licence. Since the offending vehicle was insured and respondent No. 3 intends to avoid the liability, therefore burden was on respondent No. 3 to prove the breach of the terms of the policy. The investigator who has issued Exh. NA7 was not examined by NA3. Similarly to prove the certificate NA2, R.T.A., Indore was not called. However, since the respondent No. 1 was not prosecuted for the offence of not having the licence, therefore, both the appeals filed by the appellants and the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 are disposed of in following terms: (1) Findings whereby the deceased was held equally liable for the accident are set aside. (2) Since the offending truck was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, respondent No. 3 shall pay the amount of compensation of Rs. (2) Since the offending truck was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, respondent No. 3 shall pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,16,000 along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of accident. (3) The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of the appellant No. 1 in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant No. 1 is 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. Account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. (4) Respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings for recovery of amount on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing the valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was not having the permit. (5) If the proceedings are initiated by respondent No. 3, then in execution respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to prove that the offending vehicle was possessing the permit and respondent No. 1 was possessing the driving licence. With the aforesaid observation, both the appeals stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of M.A. No. 837 of 2010. Appeals allowed.