Judgment Both these appeals are arising out of the motor vehicular accident occurred on 3/7/2002 near Balapur, Distt. Akola involving the Qualis jeep bearing registration No.MH17/K-115 and the truck bearing registration No.GJ-7/Z-7836. The deceased namely Arvind Varma, aged about 15 years, and Santosh Varma, aged about 25 years, travelling in a Qualis jeep suffered fatal injuries and died. The accident occurred while the driver of the Qualis jeep, who is original respondent no.1, was trying to overtake the truck driven by respondent no.4. On account of death of Arvind and Santosh, their parents filed two separate claim petitions i.e. M.A.C.P. No.205/2002 and M.A.C.P. No.206/2002 and claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of Arvind and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for death of Santosh respectively. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 and 5 did not contest the claims and were proceeded ex parte. 3. Respondent no.4 i.e. driver of truck although appeared did not file written statement. 4. The Qualis jeep bearing registration No.No.MH17/K-115 was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited -respondent no.3 whereas the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited -respondent no.6. 5. Respondent no.3 filed written statement and resisted the claim. It was their case that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Qualis jeep and the negligence was on the part of the driver of truck which caused accident. The next ground on which the claim was resisted was about breach of term of insurance policy. It is alleged that both the deceased and their family members were fare paying passengers in Qualis jeep and as such there was a breach of term of insurance policy and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the respondent no.3. 6. The respondent no.6 wanted to exonerate the driver of the truck by pleading that he was driving the truck in a moderate speed and with care and caution. He was the driver of Qualis jeep, who rammed his jeep in the truck. Thus, throwing the responsibility of the accident on the driver of the truck, the respondent no.6 claims total exoneration of the liability from compensating victims on account of death of the deceased persons. 7. In view of the rival contentions, learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. He was the driver of Qualis jeep, who rammed his jeep in the truck. Thus, throwing the responsibility of the accident on the driver of the truck, the respondent no.6 claims total exoneration of the liability from compensating victims on account of death of the deceased persons. 7. In view of the rival contentions, learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. It held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 i.e. drier of the Qualis jeep and completely exonerated the respondent nos.4 to 6. On the issue of quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal observed that the deceased Arvind, a boy of 15 years, was a non-earning member of the family. Therefore, on the basis of the annual notional income of Rs.15,000/-per annum and by applying multiplier of 15, he arrived at conclusion that amount of Rs.2,44,500/-, including all other heads, would be fair and just compensation. 8. As regards deceased Santosh, he was aged about 25 years, and unfortunately was travelling to the place of bride-groom in the illfated vehicle to tie marital-knot. He was a Goldsmith by profession. On the basis of the evidence, learned Tribunal assessed his annual income at Rs.48,000/-and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses multiplied it with 11 and arrived at a figure of Rs.3,71,500/-, including other heads, as fair and just amount of compensation. 9. Being aggrieved by this award, the New Indian Assurance Company -original respondent no.3 filed these two separate appeals. 10. Ms Anita Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -original respondent no.3, criticized the award mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that one Mr. Kadam was appointed as an Investigator to investigate about the capacity in which the deceased were travelling and it was found that the deceased and other passengers were travelling as fare paying passengers, which amounts to breach of terms of the policy. Second ground is about the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. 11. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -original claimants, supported the award passed by learned Tribunal. According to him, for this Court there is no scope for interference with the award passed by learned Tribunal. 12. Points arise for my consideration are : "(i) Whether the appellant could establish that there was breach of terms of policy? 11. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -original claimants, supported the award passed by learned Tribunal. According to him, for this Court there is no scope for interference with the award passed by learned Tribunal. 12. Points arise for my consideration are : "(i) Whether the appellant could establish that there was breach of terms of policy? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation, fixed by learned Tribunal in respect of death of Arvind and Santosh, needs any interference by this Court?" 13. To demonstrate that the deceased and other family members were fare paying passengers, 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. Uttam Gade (Exh.49) was working as Branch Manager at the relevant time. According to him, the claim for damages caused by Qualis jeep was lodged by its owner who is respondent no.2. For that reason, investigation was carried out by appointing one Mr. Kadam as an Investigator. It was found that when accident occurred Qualis jeep was engaged in carrying fare paying passengers. Therefore, the claim lodged by the respondent no.2 for damages was rejected. The evidence of this witness has been rightly rejected by learned Tribunal on the ground that he had no personal knowledge as to in what capacity the deceased and other persons were travelling in the said jeep. The other witness is Sambhaji Kadam (Exh.58). He has also no personal knowledge about the same. On the basis of the statements recorded by him, he came to the conclusion that the deceased and others were the fare paying passengers in Qualis jeep when it met with an accident. A very novel method of examining the Court Officer who administered oath to one witness was adopted. In fact, this cannot be the evidence. Thus, the fact remains that there was no witness who has personal knowledge about the capacity in which the passengers were travelling in Qualis jeep. Learned Tribunal was right in concluding that: "Question is, whether there is any sanctity or legal status for the evidence adduced by respondent no.3? Admittedly, the Branch Manager did not investigate it personally. He relied upon the report of investigator. Whether such investigator has any legal status? The answer must be in negative. There is no sanctity for the appointment of such investigator by the Insurance Companies in such matters. The statements recorded by the Investigator and his report, therefore, carry no significance. Admittedly, the Branch Manager did not investigate it personally. He relied upon the report of investigator. Whether such investigator has any legal status? The answer must be in negative. There is no sanctity for the appointment of such investigator by the Insurance Companies in such matters. The statements recorded by the Investigator and his report, therefore, carry no significance. The affidavit Ex.52 of Rajendra Kadel can be used only as previous statement. This Rajendra is not examined as witness by respondent no.3. Moreover, he is not owner of Qualis vehicle. Therefore, if at all certain thins are stated by him in the affidavit, it has no significance. The facts deposed by him are on the information received from respondent no.2. But when the respondent no.2 is not examined, such information becomes hear-say. The respondent no.3 should have collected any positive evidence regarding the breach of policy. Thus, there is no evidence that the Qualis vehicle was used for hire and reward." 14. Ms Anita Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the decision in case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Yunus and others reported in 2010 (4) T.A.C. 867 (Pat.) wherein learned Single Judge of Patna High Court held that if the private vehicle was used as commercial vehicle, it amounts to breach of policy and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. There cannot be any quarrel with this proposition, however, in the present case it has not been established by the appellant that the Qualis jeep was engaged in carrying fare paying passengers, burden of which lay upon them. 15. The other point for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. A good deal of evidence has been adduced on behalf of the claimants particularly, the parents of Santosh. Learned Tribunal was right in holding that Santosh was a Goldsmith and earning Rs.4,000/-per month i.e. Rs.48,000/-per annum. After deducting 1/3rd income towards his personal expenses had he been alive, the figure of loss of dependency arrived at by learned Tribunal is Rs.32,000/-which has been multiplied by 11 considering the age of the claimants. By adding expenses under other heads the total amount of compensation arrived at is Rs.3,71,500/-, which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears just and proper. 16. By adding expenses under other heads the total amount of compensation arrived at is Rs.3,71,500/-, which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears just and proper. 16. As regards compensation awarded towards the death of Arvind, learned Tribunal assumed the notional income of Rs.15,000/-per annum, he being a school going child and chosen multiplier of 16. The total compensation, including all other heads, is Rs.2,44,500/-. Ms Anita Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly contended that 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, which the victim would have incurred had he been alive ought to have been deducted. According to her, annual loss of dependency should have been of Rs.10,000/-and not Rs.15,000/-. It is not the case that learned Tribunal was oblivious of need of reducing the amount by 1/3rd. However, he assigned following reasons for not deducting the 1/3rd amount from the notional income of Rs.15,000/-per annum as follows : "As he was school going child, it is not expected that he should spend something for himself. Therefore, it is not necessary in the present case to deduct one-third amount from the said income. However, the petitioners are the parents. They were not depending on the income of the son for his entire life. Hence it is not necessary to consider the multiplier for the age of deceased Arvind, but it is necessary to consider the multiplier for the age of the petitioners." 17. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will have an effect of reducing the amount of compensation by just about Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50,000/-. The fact remains that the parents lost their child aged about 15 years. The total amount of compensation which has been granted is just Rs.2,44,500/-. Reference can usefully be made to the Single Judge decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Rekhabai and another Vs. Basant Kumar and others reported in 2011 (4) T.A.C. 586 (M.P.). It was the case of compensation on account of death of 6 and 1/2 years child. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,000/-, which was enhanced by awarding further sum of Rs.50,000/-. In that light of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded. 18. For the reasons aforestated, both the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.