JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record. 2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment cum award dated 18.4.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in separate claim applications. 3. Claim Application No. 251/1992 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the injured-claimant Sampat Raj. Claim Application No. 199/1992 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by Tulsi Bai and her minor children being the legal heirs of the deceased Bhaga Ram. The claim applications were allowed partly and the owners and driver of the offending vehicle were held responsible to satisfy the award. The claimants have approached this Court by way of C.M.A. Nos. 322/1997 and 645/1996 seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 4. Ghisa Ram alleged to be the owner of the offending vehicle has filed the Appeal Nos. 313/1997, 332/1997 and 343/1997 challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, whereby, he was held responsible to satisfy the award. 5. Facts in brief. 6. On 25.9.1991, at about 6.15 in the evening, a jeep bearing Registration No. RNM-6786 was proceeding from Jaitaran to Nimaj. Bhaga Ram, Sampat Raj and Shushil Kumar and some more people were travelling in the jeep. When the jeep reached to a distance of one kilometer from the village Khinawadi, it collided with a mile stone embedded on the road side and turned turtle. Sampat Raj and Shushil Kumar received injuries and Bhaga Ram Expired due to the injuries received in the accident. 7. Three separate claim applications were filed in relation to the accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Tulsi Bai and her minor children being the legal heirs of deceased Bhaga Ram filed Claim Application No. 199/1992 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,60,600/- on account of death of Bhaga Ram. Claim Application No. 251/1992 was filed by injured Sampat Raj claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,67,000/-. Claim Application No. 252/1992 was filed by injured Shushil Kumar claiming compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 8. The insurer of the jeep i.e. the United India Insurance Company Limited, its driver Tulchha Ram and the joint owners Ghisa Ram and Pyare Lal were impleaded as non-claimants in the claim applications. 9. 4,67,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 8. The insurer of the jeep i.e. the United India Insurance Company Limited, its driver Tulchha Ram and the joint owners Ghisa Ram and Pyare Lal were impleaded as non-claimants in the claim applications. 9. The Insurance Company filed a written statement taking a defence that the jeep in question was insured as a light motor vehicle and, therefore, it could not be used for plying passengers. It was pleaded that the injured and the deceased boarded the jeep upon their own risk. The jeep was being used to ply the passengers in total violation of the conditions of insurance policy and thus the Insurance Company was not liable to cover the risk of the passengers travelling therein. It was also averred that the jeep driver was not having a valid licence to ply the jeep. The other non-claimants did not file any reply to the claim applications. 10. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. (i) Whether on 25.9.1991, at about 6.15 in the evening, Tulchha Ram (non-claimant), the driver of the jeep whilst being in the employment of non-claimants Pyare Lal and Ghisa Ram and under their directions drove the jeep bearing Registration No. RNM-6786 rashly and negligently and caused the accident one kilometer away from the Village Khinwari, which resulted into the death of Bhaga Ram and injuries to Sampat Raj and Shushil Kumar. (ii) Whether the jeep driver Tulchha Ram had any authority to carry passengers in the jeep and whether on account of breach of policy conditions, the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from the liability of satisfying the claims. (iii) Whether Tulsi Bai and her minor children, the claimants in Claim Case No. 199/1992 are entitled to receive compensation on account of the death of Bhaga Ram and if so, the quantum thereof. (iv) Whether Sampat Raj, the claimant in Claim Case No. 251/1992 is entitled to receive compensation for the injuries received by him and if so, the quantum thereof. (v) Whether Shushil Kumar, the claimant in Claim Case No. 252/1992 is entitled to receive compensation for the injuries received by him and if so, the quantum thereof. (vi) Relief. 11. The claimants examined six witnesses in support of the claim applications. The non-claimants chose not to lead any evidence in defence. (v) Whether Shushil Kumar, the claimant in Claim Case No. 252/1992 is entitled to receive compensation for the injuries received by him and if so, the quantum thereof. (vi) Relief. 11. The claimants examined six witnesses in support of the claim applications. The non-claimants chose not to lead any evidence in defence. The learned Tribunal whilst considering the Issue No. 1 regarding the accident being caused by the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver held that the testimony of the witnesses travelling in the jeep established beyond all doubt that Tulchha Ram drove the jeep rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The learned Tribunal noticed that the jeep driver took the jeep off the road and drove it for about 70 feet and thereafter collided with the mile stone which was embedded besides the slip lane. The circumstances shown in the site plan also indicated that Tulchha Ram, the jeep driver drove the jeep rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The jeep driver Tulchha Ram did not appear in evidence to counter the evidence of the witnesses examined in support of the claim applications. Thus, the Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. 12. Regarding the Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal concluded that the burden to show that the jeep could be validly used for plying passengers was upon the driver and the owners thereof. The two claimants Sampat Raj and Shushil Kumar categorically stated in their testimony that the jeep was being used for plying passengers. They paid two rupees each to the driver for travelling in the jeep. In this background, the learned Tribunal held that the jeep was being used as a taxi for carrying passengers. The jeep was registered as a private vehicle and no permit was taken from the concerned Department for using it as a taxi. Upon appreciating the evidence and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the jeep was being used for carrying passengers in total contravention of the conditions of insurance policy and, thus, while deciding the Issue No. 2, the Insurance Company was exonerated from bearing the burden of the award. 13. Upon appreciating the evidence and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the jeep was being used for carrying passengers in total contravention of the conditions of insurance policy and, thus, while deciding the Issue No. 2, the Insurance Company was exonerated from bearing the burden of the award. 13. Claim Application No. 199/1992 filed by Tulsi Bai and her minor children, the legal heirs of the deceased Bhaga Ram (Appeal No. 645/1996) was partly allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,400/-. Claim Application No. 251/1992 filed by injured Sampat Raj (Appeal No. 322/1997) was also partly allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The Claim Application No. 252/1992 filed by Shushil Kumar was also allowed in part. 14. The learned Tribunal held that the agreement dated 30.7.1991 executed in relation to the sale of the vehicle by Pyare Lal to Ghisa Ram was duly proved. The learned Tribunal held Ghisa Ram, Pyare Lal and Tulchha Ram jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 15. Ghisa Ram has challenged the impugned awards passed in the three claim applications by way of filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 313/1997, 332/1997 and 343/1997 challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, whereby, the Insurance Company was exonerated and he was held responsible to satisfy the award. 16. Sampat Raj has filed the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/1997 (Claim Application No. 251/1992) and Tulsi Bai and her minor children, the legal heirs of the deceased Bhaga Ram have filed the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 645/1996 (Claim Application No. 199/1992) seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 17. Firstly, the appeals filed by appellant Ghisa Ram are taken up for consideration. The principle contention of Shri Abhishek Charan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Ghisa Ram is that Pyare Lal was the registered owner of the vehicle in question. He urged that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in relying upon a photostat copy of the agreement alleged to have been executed between Pyare Lal and the appellant and holding him to be the person in control of the vehicle. He urged that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in relying upon a photostat copy of the agreement alleged to have been executed between Pyare Lal and the appellant and holding him to be the person in control of the vehicle. He urged that as long as the vehicle was not transferred to the name of Ghisa Ram as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, he could not have been held responsible to satisfy the award. He further contended that the agreement was also not proved properly as Pyare Lal who claimed to have sold the jeep to the appellant Ghisa Ram neither filed any reply to the claims nor did he appear in evidence to prove the so called sale deed. He accordingly urged that the appeals filed by the appellant Ghisa Ram deserve to be accepted and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant Ghisa Ram jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award along with Pyare Lal and Tulchha Ram deserves to be set aside. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. 19. It is an admitted position that neither Pyare Lal nor the appellant Ghisa Ram filed reply to the claim petitions. Pyare Lal was held jointly and severally responsible along with Ghisa Ram and Tulchha Ram to satisfy the award. He has not challenged the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal by filing any appeal. The learned Tribunal relied upon a photostat copy of a sale agreement alleged to have been executed between the appellant and Pyare Lal for holding the appellant Ghisa Ram jointly responsible to satisfy the award. If at all, the said agreement was sought to be utilised against the appellant, then, Pyare Lal was required to appear in evidence to prove it. Admittedly, the registration of the jeep stood in Pyare Lai's name on the date of the accident. In the opinion of this Court, relying upon an unverified photostat copy of a sale agreement for holding Ghisa Ram responsible to satisfy the awards in the capacity of the joint owners of the vehicle was not at all justified. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants alleged in their testimony that the appellant was the owner of the jeep in question. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants alleged in their testimony that the appellant was the owner of the jeep in question. The plea regarding the transfer of the ownership could obviously have been taken by Pyare Lal in order to avoid the responsibility of satisfying the award. Neither did he take any such plea by filing a reply nor did he appear to testify in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in holding the appellant to be in joint control and ownership of the offending vehicle along with Pyare Lal by relying upon the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the unverified photostat copy of the agreement allegedly executed between appellant Ghisa Ram and Pyare Lal. Unless the document was duly proved as per law, the same could not be used to fasten liability on the appellant Ghisa Ram. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the appellant Ghisa Ram being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 313/1997, 332/1997 and 343/1997 deserve to be allowed and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant Ghisa Lal to be the person in control of the vehicle in question deserves to be set aside. As a consequence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award also deserves set aside. 21. Now coming to the appeals filed by the claimants Sampat Raj and Tulsi Bai and her minor children seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them by the learned Tribunal. 22. Firstly, the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/1997 filed on behalf of appellant Sampat Raj is taken up for consideration. 23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Sampat Raj vehemently contended that Sampat Raj received a grievous injury on his thigh. It was urged that the learned Tribunal awarded a meager sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant for the grievous injury suffered by him which is grossly inadequate. It was further submitted that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded for the cost of medicines and treatment and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering to the appellant Sampat Raj are inadequate. 30,000/- to the appellant for the grievous injury suffered by him which is grossly inadequate. It was further submitted that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded for the cost of medicines and treatment and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering to the appellant Sampat Raj are inadequate. Learned Counsel urged that the learned Tribunal did not award any amount to the appellant under the head of permanent disability and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced appropriately. 24. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 25. The appellant Sampat Raj received only one grievous injury in the accident. The learned Tribunal considered the nature of the injury and awarded him compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. The medical certificate (Exhibit-11) injury report and the X-ray report proved on record did not reveal that the appellant suffered from any permanent disability. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the claimant by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement by this Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant Sampat Raj being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/1997 deserves to be rejected. 26. Now coming to the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants Tulsi Bai and her minor children, the legal heirs of the deceased Bhaga Ram being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 645/1996. 27. Learned Counsel Shri O.P. Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants vehemently contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the learned Tribunal on account of death of Bhaga Ram is inadequate. He submitted that the deceased Bhaga Ram was a Government servant. The learned Tribunal did not consider rise in the income of the deceased by future prospects whilst assessing the award. As the claimants are five in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure of the deceased should have been made by ¼th and not ⅓rd of the total income as done by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the claimant Tulsi Bai towards loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded to the minor children of the deceased Bhaga Ram towards loss of love and affection is inappropriate and deserve to be enhanced. 28. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the claimant Tulsi Bai towards loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded to the minor children of the deceased Bhaga Ram towards loss of love and affection is inappropriate and deserve to be enhanced. 28. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants. 29. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record. 30. The deceased Bhaga Ram was employed as a Constable in the Police Department when he expired in the unfortunate accident. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and looking to the fact that the deceased, a Government servant was 42 years of age at the time of the accident, addition of 50% towards future prospects and rise in income has to be acknowledged in the annual income of the deceased whilst calculating compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led before it, held the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,600/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court is justified. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 SC 3104 and as the deceased was 42 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 14 instead of 12 as done by the learned Tribunal. The deduction of ⅓rd made by the learned Tribunal towards personal needs and expenditure of the deceased is also inappropriate. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and as the claimants are five in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure of Bhaga Ram should be ¼th of his income and not ⅓rd as was done by the learned Tribunal. 31. However, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the claimant-appellant Tulsi Bai towards loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 31. However, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the claimant-appellant Tulsi Bai towards loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the children of the deceased Bhaga Ram is justified and does not call for any enhancement. 32. Thus, enhancement deserves to be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellants keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403. In view of what has been discussed above, the following computation deserves to be approved for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the claimants-appellants:- (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Annual income of the deceased 1,600 x 12 19,200 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects 9,600 28,800 ¼th deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure 7,200 21,600 Multiplier of net income applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) 14 3,02,400 Loss of consortium to wife 25,000 3,27,400 Loss of love and affection to the four children 5,000 each in all 20,000 3,47,400 Total (Rs.) Funeral expenses 2,000 3,49,400 Total compensation 3,49,000 33. The appeal filed on behalf of the claimant-appellants Tulsi Bai and others being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 645/1996 deserves to be allowed in part. The impugned judgment cum award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in M.A.C. Case No. 199/1992 is modified and the appellants are held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation indicated above along with interest @ 7.5% to be applied on the enhanced amount. 34. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions 1. 70% to the wife of the deceased, 2. 30% to the four children of the deceased. 35. Any amount already paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 36. Resultantly, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant Ghisa Ram being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 35. Any amount already paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 36. Resultantly, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant Ghisa Ram being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 313/1997, 332/1997 and 343/1997 are allowed as indicated above and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant Ghisa Ram to be the person in control of the vehicle involved in the accident is reversed. Consequently, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant Ghisa Ram jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award is set aside. 37. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Sampat Raj being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/1997 being bereft of any force is hereby rejected. 38. The appeal filed on behalf of Tulsi Bai and others being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 645/1996 is partly allowed.Record be sent back forthwith.No order as to costs.A copy of this order be placed in the connected appeals.Appeal Nos. 313/1997, 332/1997, 343/1997 allowed/Appeal No. 322/1997 dismissed/Appeal No. 645/1996 partly allowed. *******