JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 18.5.2010 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in the Claim Case No. 65 of 2009 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 5,88,860 was awarded and insurance company, respondent No. 3, was exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the claim petition alleging that on 27.7.2009 the deceased Ambaram was going on a motorbike along with Om Prakash towards Depalpur. At that time offending Minidoor which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, hit the motorbike of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and passed away. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Claim petition was contested by the respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,88,860 as compensation and exonerated respondent No. 3, insurance company, against which present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that deceased was aged 44 years and was working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat and his salary was Rs. 4,346. Since the deceased was in job right from 1995, therefore, future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that amount awarded be enhanced. It is submitted that since the deceased was third party, therefore learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and findings whereby respondent No. 3 was exonerated be set aside. 3. Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel, submits that the salary assessed by the learned Tribunal was just and proper. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was driven in violation of the terms of policy, therefore the respondent No. 3 was rightly exonerated. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same be dismissed. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the accident took place on 27.7.2009. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was driven in violation of the terms of policy, therefore the respondent No. 3 was rightly exonerated. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same be dismissed. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the accident took place on 27.7.2009. Deceased was hospitalised on that very day. Deceased struggled for his life for 3 days but ultimately passed away. Evidence shows that sufficient amount was spent for his treatment. In the circumstances, the amount awarded on account of medical expenses as Rs. 60,378 appears to be on lower side. No amount has been awarded on pecuniary losses. The salary of the deceased was as under : 5. It appears that it is only travelling allowance which could not have been taken into consideration while considering the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,346 is on higher side which ought to have been Rs. 4,000. Since the deceased was in a secured job, therefore future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration. Thus, the appellants are entitled for the following amount as compensation : 6. Accordingly the appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 7,30,860 instead of Rs. 5,88,860. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,42,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. 7. So far as exoneration of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, undisputedly the deceased was a third party, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3, even if the respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid licence then, too, at least right of recovery ought to have been given to the respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the respondent No. 3 was exonerated is modified to the extent that respondent No. 3 shall pay and shall have a right to recover the amount awarded from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the respondent No. 3 was exonerated is modified to the extent that respondent No. 3 shall pay and shall have a right to recover the amount awarded from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of the appellant No. 1 in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant No. 1 which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. This order shall be executable only upon payment of proportionate court-fee on the enhanced amount. The court-fee be paid within 3 months from the date of this order. Registry to prepare memo of costs. Appellant's counsel shall provide certified copy of memo of costs to the counsel for insurance company. The insurance company thereafter shall deposit the enhanced amount with costs with the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of memo of costs. On failure to comply with the aforesaid direction, no interest would be payable on the enhanced amount from the date of order till the court-fee is actually paid and memo of costs is supplied to the counsel for insurance company.