JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal by the insurer is directed against judgment and award dated 12.01.1999 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the death of one Pusha Lal on 20.12.1990, a sum of Rs. 62,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 3. While the appellant Insurance Company is aggrieved against the liability imposed, the claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the award. 4. The facts in brief may be noticed that on 20.12.1990 deceased Pusha Lal was travelling in a Car No.RJ06-176 from Hameergarh to Bhilwara; when at around 06:30 AM the car collided with a Truck No.RNE-5301 from behind, which resulted in death of said Pusha Lal. It was claimed that Pusha Lal was aged about 17 years and was contributing to the family to the extent of Rs. 600/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,25,000/- under various heads. 5. The averments made in the application for compensation ('the application') were disputed by the appellant Insurance Company, inter alia, with the submissions that the vehicle was insured under 'Act only' policy and, therefore, for the death of a passenger in the said vehicle, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable. Other averments made in the application were also disputed. 6. The case of owner of the vehicle was that the deceased was a trespasser in the vehicle, inasmuch as, the driver was prohibited from permitting anyone to travel in the said vehicle. However, it was claimed that the vehicle was comprehensively insured, therefore, in any case, the liability is that of the Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal after the evidence was led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the policy in question was 'Act only' policy, however, treating the passenger as a third party, held the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation and while considering the issue relating to compensation on finding that the deceased was 16 years old boy and was not earning anything, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. It was directed that the amount would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 21.02.1991. 8. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. It was directed that the amount would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 21.02.1991. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal despite coming to the conclusion that the deceased was a fare paying passenger and the policy was 'Act only' policy, has imposed liability on the appellant Insurance Company, which is contrary to the terms of policy and, in any case, as there was a violation of the policy conditions, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that it is factually incorrect that the policy was act only policy, inasmuch as, Exhibit-A/2, which is on record, clearly indicates that the policy was a comprehensive policy and it covered risk of four passengers. 10. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Anr., (2013) 1 SCC 731 : 2013 (1) T.A.C. 1 in support of the contention. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently submitted that refusal to grant any sum under the head loss of income is per se illegal and the award passed for a meager sum of Rs. 62,000/- deserves to be enhanced. 12. I have considered the rival submissions.Though the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the policy involved was 'Act only' policy, whereby, the liability to only third party was undertaken by the Insurance Company, a look at the policy Exhibit-A/2 reveals that the policy in fact is a comprehensive policy and clearly provides for a seating capacity alongwith driver, four in all. Further, NAW-2 Bardi Chand - Officer of the appellant Insurance Company in his cross-examination specifically admitted that the policy was a comprehensive policy. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal is apparently contrary to the record and the case of the parties. 13. Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), liability of the occupants in a car is clearly of the appellant Insurance Company and the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company has, therefore, no substance. 14. 13. Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), liability of the occupants in a car is clearly of the appellant Insurance Company and the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company has, therefore, no substance. 14. So far as the issue relating to violation of the policy condition is concerned, apparently, the said aspect has neither been pressed nor submitted before the Tribunal so as to attract its attention. The Tribunal only considered the said aspect on account of submissions made by the owner that the driver was not authorised to permit anybody to travel in the vehicle. As such, there is no substance in this submission as well. 15. Coming to the issue relating to grant of compensation to the parents for loss of income, in terms of table provided under the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), which has been held to be a guide for the purpose of award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 5 SCALE 160 : 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 , a look at the said table indicates that for a non-earning member, the income is taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and a multiplier in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of 14 is to be adopted keeping in view the age of the parents, who were aged about 47 and 42 respectively at the time of filing application, which brings the amount to Rs. 2,10,000/- under the head of loss of income. 16. So far as grant of future prospects in the present case is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was not undertaking any gainful activity and was only a student and no evidence has come on record so far as his future prospects are concerned, as such, case for grant of future prospects, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not made out. The award of compensation under the other heads also does not call for any interference. 17. The award of compensation under the other heads also does not call for any interference. 17. The Tribunal has awarded 12% interest from the date of filing application, however, keeping in view the recent trend, it is deemed just and proper to award interest @ 6% per annum on the amount enhanced under this judgment from the date of filing application i.e. 21.02.1991. 18. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed. The award impugned passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that in place of compensation of Rs. 62,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/- from the date of filing application i.e. 21.02.1991.Appeal dismissed and Cross-objection partly allowed. *******