JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.1.2009 passed by the judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kekri in MACT Case No. 80/2005 whereby the respondent No. 3 has been exonerated to pay the amount of compensation and further it has been submitted that the amount is to be enhanced. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that claimant-appellants wife, four minor children and mother of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal that the deceased Chhotu aged 38 years was going on motor cycle No. RJ-01-14M-3438 from Shokly to Sarana along with Hanuman on 6.9.2005. Near Sarana Circle at Ajmer-Kota Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, the motor cycle fell down on speed breaker. Chhotu has sustained serious injuries. Chhotu has been immediately taken to Tantoli Hospital where he died. 3. The contention of the present appellant is that it is the primary duty of the insurance Company to satisfy the impugned order in respect of claim and there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company has denied the compensation and has been wrongly exonerated on the ground that the risk of pillion rider is not covered as per the insurance policy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are erroneous and reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Jamila Bano & Ors. v. Babu Khan & Ors., 2011 RAR 404 (Raj.) , where this matter has been considered and it was held that if the vehicle is insured for owner and driver, no premium is paid to cover the risk of pillion rider, but in spite of that when the policy is comprehensive policy, the Insurance Company is liable to for pillion rider and reference has been made regarding the communication from insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to all the companies of general insurance companies wherein it has been directed that the Insurance Company is liable for the pillion rider and the appeals which have been preferred on this ground should be withdrawn. A further reference has been made to the two wheelers package policy, the conditions of which reads as follows:- (1) Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured." 4. Looking at above, it is not in dispute that the Insurance Company is liable for pillion rider taking note of the circulate issued by IRDA. The insurance companies are directed to withdraw the appeals pending on the ground that the insurance companies are not liable for pillion rider. Hence the finding of the learned Tribunal that due to the fact that the claimant is pillion rider, the Insurance Company is not liable, is liable to be quashed. 5. The other contention of the present appellants is that for personal expenses of the deceased, l/3rd of the income has been deducted from his income, whereas admittedly, the deceased is having 6 dependents, four children, wife and mother and looking to the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009(11) ACC 161 (SC) the deduction for personal expenditure should be l/4th. 6. In view of the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal whereby the respondent No. 3 has been exonerated to pay the amount of compensation is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be l/4th instead of l/3rd. 7. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 3000/- per month, therefore, after deducting l/4th amount towards the personal expenses, the income comes to Rs. 2250/- and after applying the multiplier of 16, the total income of the deceased comes to 2250 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 4,32,000. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 7. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 3000/- per month, therefore, after deducting l/4th amount towards the personal expenses, the income comes to Rs. 2250/- and after applying the multiplier of 16, the total income of the deceased comes to 2250 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 4,32,000. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards love and affection. Hence the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,32,000 + Rs. 40,000 = Rs. 4,72,000/-. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 4,24,000/-. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 4,72,000 - Rs. 4,24,000 = Rs. 48,000/-. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the compensation awarded is enhanced by Rs. 48,000/- along with 9 per cent interest from the date of filing of the appeal till actual payment is made. The respondent No. 3. Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with other respondents.Appeal allowed. *******