Judgment 1. These two appeals respectively by the claimants and the Insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 12th March 2010, passed in MVC No. 95/2004, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. While the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal in their favour is inadequate and needs to be enhanced; the Insurer has filed the appeal seeking to set aside the liability fastened on it, on the ground that, there is no authorization from the jurisdictional Regional Transport Officer to drive the vehicle in question. 3. The facts in brief are that the claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the minor daughter and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased, K.P. Sudhakaran. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 00:30 hours, on 29-11 2003, near Kaniminike colony on Bangalore --Mysore Road, while the deceased was proceeding in the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No,KA-05/P-I877, the driver of the water Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05/B-2306 which was proceeding in front of the Maruthi Car drove the said vehicle at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped the same. Due to sudden stopping of the said vehicle, the Maruthi Car came in contact with the water Tanker Lorry and hit the hind portion of the Lorry. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries. Immediately he was shifted to NIMHANs, Bangalore, But, unfortunately, the deceased succumbed to the accidental injuries on the same day. 4. It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was aged about 34 years and working as Production Manager, earning Rs.15,825/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the first claimant has lost her life partner, the minor child has lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and the parents have lost the social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 12th March, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment and directed the Insurer to indemnify the award. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation; whereas the Insurer is in appeal seeking to set aside the liability fastened it, on the ground that, there is no authorization from the jurisdictional RTO to the driver of the offending vehicle to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. 6. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by both claimants and Insurer and also the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the Insurer. 7. Shri. P. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for claimants at the outset submitted that, the specific ground taken by the Insurer that, the Tribunal is not justified in directing the Insurer to indemnify the award and the specific submission of the learned counsel that, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have authorization to drive the light goods vehicle cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be rejected at the threshold as the same are baseless nor the same have any substance. To substantiate the said submission, he is quick to point out and take us through Section 2 (21) read with Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act and further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 906 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Hazira Begum and others and a Division bench judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (1) T.A.C. 87 (Kant.) in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Mysore Vs. Hazira Begum and others and a Division bench judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (1) T.A.C. 87 (Kant.) in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Mysore Vs. Shivanna and others in M.F.A.No.435/1999 decided on 15th March 2000 (paragraphs 10 and 11) and vehemently submitted that this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have consistently held that the light motor vehicle covers light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods vehicle and the Insurer cannot shirk its liability to pay compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error and material irregularity, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, without any justification, contrary to the clinching evidence available on file at Exs.F17 and P19, the Certificate issued by the jurisdictional income Tax authority to the effect that the deceased was an Income Tax Assessee and was paying income tax regularly and the deceased during his life time has filed Saral in Form-2D on 15-09-2003 at Bangalore. The accident occurred on 29-11-2003. In the said income tax returns filed by the deceased, he has shown the gross income as Rs.1,42,996/-, out of which, he has deducted ^1,376/-towards income tax and Rs.150/- towards professional tax. He has mentioned the PAN Card bearing No.ARVPS4227R and also the statement of income tax Form No. 16 issued by the employer under Rule 31 (1) (a), for the period from 01 04-2002 to 31-03-2003 and also the Certificate at Ex.P17, issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(2), Bangalore. A copy of all the said documents are produced by filing a memo on 10-02- 2014. These documents clearly establish beyond all reasonable doubts that7 the deceased was an income tax assessee and was paying the income tax regularly. But, this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered or appreciated by the Tribunal and in an arbitrary manner and erroneously, assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and adopting 16' multiplier awarded Rs.3,84,000/-towards loss of dependency and Rs.55,000/- towards conventional heads, which is not sustainable. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. 8. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, Shri. O. Mahesh at the outset vehemently submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment, holding that the driver had an effective Driving Licence to drive the light Goods vehicle cannot be sustained and is liable to be vitiated and that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for claimants cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, he is quick to point out and submit that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and it is mandatory that the Driver driving the said vehicle possesses an effective and valid Driving Licence issued by the jurisdictional RTO and that the said aspect has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on Section 2 (21) and Section 2(47) r/w. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that, it is crystal clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Act that, getting authorization from the competent authority to drive the light motor vehicle is mandatory in nature and that cannot be dispensed with under any circumstances. He further submitted, in the instant case, admittedly, there is no authorization or any authenticated or credible document as such produced by the claimants to show that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed the authorization issued by the jurisdictional RTO to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore, he submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for issuing direction to the Insurer to indemnify the award on the ground that the vehicle in question has been insured with the Insurance Company cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 9. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducting 1 / 3rd towards personal expenses, adopting 16' multiplier and awarding Rs.3,84,000/ towards loss of dependency and also towards conventional heads. 9. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducting 1 / 3rd towards personal expenses, adopting 16' multiplier and awarding Rs.3,84,000/ towards loss of dependency and also towards conventional heads. To substantiate the said submission, he took us through Exs.P17 and P19, and submitted that, except the said documents, the claimants have not produced any other documents such statement of assessment produced before the authority or any order from the jurisdictional assessing authority to show that the deceased was fin income tax assessee. Therefore, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available including the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for claimants along with a memo and other judgments, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are: I] Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the Insurer to indemnify the award? II] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? Re-point No. 1: Occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased K.P. Sudhakaran are not in dispute. The claimants are none other than the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased. It is further not disputed that, as on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurer and that the policy was very much in force. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, there was no authorization from the competent authority to drive the light goods vehicle and that the vehicle in question does not fall under the category of light motor vehicles. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, there was no authorization from the competent authority to drive the light goods vehicle and that the vehicle in question does not fall under the category of light motor vehicles. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the Driving Licence extract at Ex.R1, Insurance Policy at Ex.R2, and Driving Licence at Ex.R3 and also Sections 2(21) and 2(47) r/w. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (4) KCCR 3093 (paragraph 13) and submitted that, it is crystal clear from the relevant provision as well as the judgment of the Division Bench that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the award, if the Driver of the offending vehicle did not have the authorization to drive the vehicle in question. 11. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer cannot be accepted nor the judgments relied upon by the counsel for Insurer are relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. There is no quarrel or second opinion regarding the well settled law laid down in the said judgments, but the facts and circumstances of the cases referred by him are not applicable to the case on hand and are different from the facts of the present case. 12. After critical evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare, it can be seen that, Ex.P18 is the extract of Driving Licence. In the said extract, at page 4, the unladen weight is mentioned as 3,300 Kgs. at the top of the said page at Sl.No. 14. Further, as per Ex.PIO, copy of the Insurance, it is stated that, the unladen weight of the vehicle should not exceed 7,500 Kgs. Therefore, admittedly, the vehicle in question was less than 7,500 kgs. 13. Further, to understand better to consider the facts of the case, it is worthwhile to extract Sections 2(21), 2 (47) and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which read thus: Section 2 (21): “Light Motor Vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of anu of which, does not exceed 7,500 Kgs." (emphasis supplied) The said unladen weight of 7,500 kgs. is substituted by 6000 Kgs. by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994. Section 2 (47) : "'Transport vehicle' means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; Section 10: "10. Form and contents of licences to driveL- (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 1S, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description" 14. The sum and substance of the combined reading of all the three provisions would indicate that, a vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7,500 kgs/6,000 Kgs. falls under the category of a light motor vehicle, as the case may be. In the case on hand, the R.C. Book produced by the claimants would show that the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is 3,300 Kgs. as per column No. 14 of the said R.C. Book. Hence, in view of the said guideline, the vehicle involved in the accident is to be treated as a light motor vehicle and it cannot be considered as a light goods vehicle and admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a Driving Licence of Light Motor vehicle and the same is valid for the period from 2001 to 2021 and the accident occurred on 29-11-2003. Thus, there is no way that the Insurer can escape from the liability of indemnifying the owner, who has insured his vehicle with it. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company is hereby rejected. 15. Regarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others (2008 AIR SCW 906), (supra), it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as follows: 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and heavy goods vehicle'. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others (2008 AIR SCW 906), (supra), it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as follows: 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law." (underlining by us) 16. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Mysore Vs. Shivanna and others in M.F.A. No 43S/1999 decided on 15th March 2000 [(2001(1) T.A.C, 87 (Kant.)] at paragraphs 10 and 11 has held as follows: "10. We do not find substance in the argument raised. Admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicles from 23rd April, 1992 to 20th April 1995. He was authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle with effect from January, 1993. As the accident took place on 15th June, 1992, the endorsement issued on January, 1993 to drive heavy goods vehicle has no much relevance. As on the date of the accident, he had a licence to drive light motor vehicle. As per the definition clause in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omni bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of and of which does not exceed 7,500 kgs. (7,500 kgs was substituted for 6,000, by Section 2 of Act 5-1 of 1994 with effect from 14th November, 1994), It is not in dispute that the unladen weight of the offending lorry in question as per 'B' Register extract of the vehicle Ex. R -3 is 4,960 kgs. As the weight of the offending vehicle was 4,960 kgs., i.e., much less than 7,500 kgs it has to be treated as light motor vehicle. R -3 is 4,960 kgs. As the weight of the offending vehicle was 4,960 kgs., i.e., much less than 7,500 kgs it has to be treated as light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle as per the definition would include a transport vehicle also. 11. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and that no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. The driver had a valid licence to drive the light motor vehicle. Section 3 provides the necessity to have a driving licence and further to drive the type of vehicle for which he has been given a licence to drive. As the driver had the licence to drive a light motor vehicle he would be deemed to be authorized to drive all types of Light Motor Vehicles including a transport vehicle. Offending vehicle has to be treated as a light motor vehicle as its unladen weight was less than 7,500 kgs. As the driver had a valid licence and the owner had entrusted the vehicle to the driver, the owner shall become vicariously liable to pay for the acts of his servants. Insurer as per the policy, had agreed to indemnify the owner and therefore becomes liable to pay the amount of compensation." (underlining by us) 17. Further, it is worthwhile to extract paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyappan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another in Civil Appeal No.4834/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5091/2009) decided on 01-07-2013, which is rendered after referring to various judgments in Swaran Singh's case, Sushil Kumar's case, Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, Kusum Rai and others, Kokilaben Chadravada's case, etc. 17. United India Insurance Company Limited and another in Civil Appeal No.4834/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5091/2009) decided on 01-07-2013, which is rendered after referring to various judgments in Swaran Singh's case, Sushil Kumar's case, Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, Kusum Rai and others, Kokilaben Chadravada's case, etc. 17. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to wake third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles mould be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this uglu situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in and event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer man proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (Hi) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy." (emphasis supplied) 18. Therefore, after going through the relevant citations produced before us, coupled with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as extracted above and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that, the driver of the offending vehicle did possess a valid and an effective Driving Licence and the owner shall become vicariously liable to pay for the acts of its servants and that the Insurance Company, having issued the Policy in favour of the owner and since the same is very much in force, is therefore liable to pay the compensation. Having regard to the totality of the case on hand and in the light of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view, the Tribunal is highly justified in coming to the conclusion that the Insurer was liable to indemnify the amount at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment and directing the Insurer to compensate the owner. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1] in the 'affirmative'. Re-Point III : So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen that, the claimants are none other than the wife, aged about 27 years, minor daughter aged about just an year, father aged about 69 years and mother aged about 57 years as on the date of accident of deceased K.P. Sudhakaran It is stated by claimants that, the deceased was aged about 34 years, working as Production Manager, drawing salary of ^15,825/-per month as per Ex.P11. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is their further contention that on account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, they have lost the sole earning member in the family inasmuch as the wife has lost the life partner, the minor daughter is deprived of her father's love and affection, guidance, inspiration and support and the parents are deprived of seeing the bright future of their son apart from losing the social, financial and moral security in their old age. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,825/-as per Salary Certificate at Ex.P11. The deceased has not suppressed anything regarding his salary during his life time and in fact, the deceased has been filing his returns regularly and had during his life time, file Saral in Form-2D dated 15-09-2003 on 20-09-2003, wherein he has declared his gross salary of Rs.1,42,996/-, showing therein the exemption claimed under Section 10(13-A) as per Form 16 at Rs.25,409, deductions under Section 16 at Rs.31,200/-, tax payable on total income at Rs.6,278/- and rebate under Section 88 etc. He has also mentioned the PAN Number as ARVPS4227R with ITO Salary Ward 14(2). The said document is dated 15th September 2003 and filed on 20th September 2003 and the accident occurred on 29-11-2003, much after filing of the said document. Therefore, from the above said information, it is evident that, the deceased was an income tax assessee and had been filing his income tax returns regularly. We have no reason to disbelieve the same and accordingly accept the income of the deceased at Rs.1,42,996/ per annum. Out of that, if income tax and professional tax of Rs.3,536/- is deducted, the net annual income comes to Rs.1,39,460/-. Out of this, since the number of dependents are four, we have to deduct l/4th (i.e. Rs.34,865/-) towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if l/4th (i.e. Rs.34,865/-) is deducted from Rs.1,39,460/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.1,04,595/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 34 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 16' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. As the deceased was aged about 34 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 16' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 16,73,520/- (i.e. Rs.1,04,595/- x 16') as against Rs.3,84,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 19. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) as against Rs.55,000/- awarded by Tribunal, Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs.17,23,520/- as against Rs.4,39,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs.12,84,520/- with 6% interest per annum. 20 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed as being devoid of merit and the appeal filed by claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 12th March 2010, passed in MVC No.95/2004, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.12,84,520/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,84.520/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of cop}' of the judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/'- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the second claimant- minor daughter of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled,/ Nationalized Bank, till she attains the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to claimant No.1 mother and natural guardian to withdraw the periodical interest for her welfare, till she attains the age of 21 years and from 22 to 30 years, the claimant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the interest. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the first claimant -wife of deceased in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years and renewable for ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of the third and fourth claimants - parents of deceased in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years and renewable for another five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs.1,84,520/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of claimant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by the Insurer. Office to draw award, accordingly. The statutory amount in deposit by the Insurer in the appeal filed by it is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. In view of disposal of main matter, Misc.Cvl.23425/2010 for stay filed in M.F.A.No. 11012/2010 by (he Insurer does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.