Judgment :- 1. The appellants are dependants of a deceased in a road accident. 2. On 08.12.2007, at about 6 a.m. in Pattukkottai, one Ayyappan came driven 3rd respondent's bike, which has been insured with the National Insurance Company/4th respondent. Then one Saminathan travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider. At about that time, a van, belonging to the first respondent, which has been insured with the second respondent came driven in a rash and negligent manner. The van dashed against the bike. In this accident, Ayyappan was wounded and Saminathan died. In M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2008, Ayyappan was granted compensation and in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008, the dependants of deceased Saminathan were granted Rs.1,45,000/-. The Tribunal noting that then the Van driver was having only LMV driving licence and was not having endorsement to drive a goods vehicle, like the van found breach of terms and conditions of the policy and thus, the insurer of the Van, namely, the Reliance Insurance Company/2nd respondent was exempted from paying the compensation amount. Since, there was no fault on the bike -rider, no award was passed as against 3rd and 4th respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the applicable multiplier is 7' but the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 5'. Further, the deceased headed a family consisting of 5 persons. The deduction towards his personal expenses from his income should be 1/4th, but the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. Further, the Tribunal took very low monthly income. Granted less compensation under all the heads. What was granted is not just and fair compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that in C.M.A.(MD) No.1048 of 2010, Ayyappan questioned the decision of the Tribunal exempting the Reliance Insurance Company from paying the amount, the appeal was allowed with a direction to the insurance company to pay him the compensation amount and recover it from the Van owner. As against that there is no appeal to the Apex Court. That decision has become final. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that the appellants are third parties and in the facts and circumstances of this case, a direction for pay and recovery is required to be issued. 6. As against that there is no appeal to the Apex Court. That decision has become final. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that the appellants are third parties and in the facts and circumstances of this case, a direction for pay and recovery is required to be issued. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that the Tribunal having found that the Van driver was not having valid endorsement to drive the Van rightly excluded the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount to the Claimants. 7. The learned counsel for the National Insurance Company/4th respondent would submit that the Tribunal has rightly not imposed any liability on their Company. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal. 9. The deceased was a supplier of plantain leaves in certain hotels in Pattukkottai. The Tribunal took Rs.3,000/- as his monthly income. The deceased was the head of a family consisting of 5 persons. Including him, it becomes 6 persons. It is common sense that Rs.3,000/- would be hardly sufficient for supporting such a big family. So, Rs.3,000/-per month is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances, we take Rs.4,000/-per month. 10. There were 5 dependants. In such circumstances, as per SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. (III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)), towards personal expenses only 1/4 should be deducted for his income. However, the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd. So, the rate of deduction has to be revised. 11. Deducting 1/4 amount towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family would be Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. At the time of his death, the deceased was 65 years old. As per SARLA VERMA (supra) the applicable multiplier is 7'. But the Tribunal took the multiplier 5'. So, the multiplier has to be revised. 13. Applying the multiplier 7', the loss of dependancy comes to Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 7 = Rs.2,52,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection only Rs.20,000/- was awarded at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each. This is very low. Thus, each is awarded Rs.15,000/-. Towards cremation charges Rs.5,000/- was awarded. It is raised to Rs.8,000/-. Towards loss of estate to the deceased Rs.20,000/-is awarded. Thus, the total compensation is revised at Rs.3,55,000/-. 14. Tribunals are statutorily bound to award just compensation. This is very low. Thus, each is awarded Rs.15,000/-. Towards cremation charges Rs.5,000/- was awarded. It is raised to Rs.8,000/-. Towards loss of estate to the deceased Rs.20,000/-is awarded. Thus, the total compensation is revised at Rs.3,55,000/-. 14. Tribunals are statutorily bound to award just compensation. When it is ascertained, it may even exceed the amount claimed by them. Yet, the Tribunal and the Court has to award just compensation. In such circumstances, it may exceed the amount claimed by the claimants. In such circumstances, there is no legal bar to award such just compensation amount. 15. The offending vehicle is a van. It is a goods vehicle. Admittedly, at the time of accident the van driver was having LMV driving licence. There was no endorsement, Batch to drive this vehicle. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found it a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. For that, the claimants who are third parties should not be made to suffer. Now, in the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JAWAHAR SINGH v. BALA JAIN & ORS (2011 (1) TN MAC 641 (SC)), the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, wherein a minor who was not at all eligible to have a driving licence had driven the vehicle. 16. But the case before us is not a case of no licence at all. It is a case of having driving licence but without endorsement to drive a goods vehicle. 17. Further, in the connected case in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008, C.M.A.(MD) No.1048 of 2010 was preferred by injured Ayyappan and on 20.06.2012 this Court directed the Insurance Company to pay him the compensation amount and recover it from the Van owner. No appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the circumstances, by virtue of the said judgment, the 'principle of estoppel by judgment' will also operate. Now, the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to speak in a different tone. It cannot resile from the situation arising from the said judgment. 18. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it is a fit case that direction for 'pay and recovey' is required to be issued to the Insurance Company. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It cannot resile from the situation arising from the said judgment. 18. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it is a fit case that direction for 'pay and recovey' is required to be issued to the Insurance Company. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The common award of the Tribunal, so far as it relates to M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008 is modified. The appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit and costs. The appellants shall pay the excess Court fee within 3 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2nd respondent shall deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any, already deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. The 2nd respondent can recover the entire amount from the 1st respondent. For this purpose, it need not file any separate suit. Based on the direction in this judgment itself, it can file an execution petition before the appropriate Court. The decision of the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition as against the 3rd respondent is upheld. No costs.