Judgment Heard. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the original claimants, who are aggrieved by the exoneration of the Insurance Company from payment of the compensation, as well as the lesser payment of compensation granted by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Ahmednagar in an Application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Deceased Ramesh Narayan Mule died in an accident dated 8.12.1989, while he was travelling by the goods tempo. It was the case of the appellants that he was travelling by the goods tempo, as the owner of some furniture. In the evidence, it was stated that he was carrying five Maharaja chairs and one tea-poi and as such, claiming to be the owner of the goods, the claim was also made against the Insurance Company. 4. Learned Member of the M.A.C.T. has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that deceased was not travelling as the owner of the goods in the tempo and therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company i.e. present respondent no.3 from payment of the compensation. 5. Without going into the appreciation of evidence, on facts, it is sufficient to note that the accident in question has occurred on 8.12.1989 i.e. previous to the amendment to section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In that view of the matter, relying on the ratio of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Asha Rani and others v. 2003 (2) S.C.C. 223 , learned counsel for respondent no.3, Mr. A.B. Gatne quoted paragraph no.9 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "9. In Satpal case the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46, by which the expression "injury to any person" in the original Act stood substituted by the expression "injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle", the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression "to any person" it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy." "It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words, used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle" which was added to the pre-existing expression "injury to any person" is either clarificatory or amplification of the preexisting statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal case therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury." 6. In view of the clear pronunciation of law in this regard, it is not necessary to go into the factual aspect and only conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondent no.3 is not liable to indemnify the driver or the owner of the vehicle in paying the compensation. 7. The next of the question is regarding the quantum of the compensation. The oral as well as the documentary evidence on record shows that the deceased was 37 years old. He was working as a Clerk with A.D.C.C. Bank and was earning Rs.2456/-per month. He has six dependents i.e. the present appellants. In that view of the matter, the reasoning of the learned Member, M.A.C.T. that only Rs.1600/-per month shall be taken as loss of dependency and multiplier of 10 would be applicable, will have to be set aside in view of the standardization of the quantum of compensation in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. 2009 (6) S.C.C. 121. 8. Since the deceased had left behind him 6 dependents, 1/5th from the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Further, the multiplier of 14 will have to be applied. Thus, salary of Rs.2456/ (-) 1/5th i.e. Rs. 491/= Rs.1965/-would be the dependency per month and Rs.1965/ X 12 = Rs.23580/-would be the annual dependency. The compensation would thus come to Rs.23,580 X 14 = Rs.3,30,120/-. The learned Member has added an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards the non-pecuniary damages as loss of consortium. It is now well established that non-pecuniary damages generally should come to Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation which can be termed as just would be : Rs.3,30,120/-+ Rs.20,000/-= Rs.3,50,120/-. 9. In view of this matter, the Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The learned Member has added an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards the non-pecuniary damages as loss of consortium. It is now well established that non-pecuniary damages generally should come to Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation which can be termed as just would be : Rs.3,30,120/-+ Rs.20,000/-= Rs.3,50,120/-. 9. In view of this matter, the Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The claim of the appellant against respondent no.3 is dismissed without any order as to costs. It is hereby directed that respondent nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.3,50,120/-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.02.1990 till realization with proportionate costs.