JUDGMENT 1. - In this Appeal, appellant National Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 6.4.1999 which was passed in Motor Accidents Claim No. 2/1998 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Churu titled as Mst. Ugam Kanwar & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. & Ors. The Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 4,10,000/- ( Rs. Four Lacs and Ten Thousand only) in favour of Mst. Ugam Kanwar & Ors. who are said to be legal representative of deceased Ummed Singh who had died in a motor accident while travelling in Maruti Car No. DU-6097. In appeal it has been argued that the deceased was travelling in a private vehicle which was being used as commercial vehicle and its driver Bhem Singh was having a driving licence by which he was authorised to drive Light Mold Vehicles only and so there is breach of insurance policy and so the Insurance Company should be exonerated to pay any amount to the claimants, it has also been argued that rule of pay and recover cannot be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because this rule can be applied only by the Apex Court using its extraordinary powers given under Article 142. 2. It was also argued that at the time of the accident, the car was allowed to carry only four passengers but six passengers were travelling in it and so because of overloading also Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to tie claimants. 3. I have heard all the arguments of both sides. Claimants (respondents) haw relied upon the following rulings of the Apex Court; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M Poonam & Ors., 2011 DNJ (SC) 650 in this case policy was taken for six passengers including driver. The vehicle was carrying excess passengers. It was held by the Apex Court that the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only and excess number of persons would be treated as third party and they will be entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle. It was further held that such excess number of persons will first get compensation from the insurer and then the Insurance Company will recover it from the owner. 4. Appellant (Insurance Company) has relied upon following rulings No. I- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 401. It was further held that such excess number of persons will first get compensation from the insurer and then the Insurance Company will recover it from the owner. 4. Appellant (Insurance Company) has relied upon following rulings No. I- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 401. This case was relating to claim of pillion rider of a two wheeler and it was held in this case that in a statutory policy, if policy did not cover the risk of death or bodily injury to a pillion rider then the Insurance Company of the two wheelers would not be liable to be pay compensation to the legal representatives of pillion order in such a case. Law laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present case, because present case relates to the claim for a person sitting in car (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428 . In this case, it was held that when a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act of Insurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting of the ratio of Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 , The law laid down in that case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case because it has not been pleaded in the memo of appeal of the Insurance Company that the deceased was iota third party within the meaning of Act, 1988. 5. To solve the controversy, we may take help from following ruling also; (1) Oriented Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vandana & Ors., (2007) ACC 398 (DB) Raj. , in this case a Division Bench of this Court has held that carrying of other persons i.e. relations, friends etc. of owner is not barred under the Act. Bar is only against using vehicle for carrying passengers on hire. In that case there was no evidence to prove that victims travelled on fare and so the insurer was held liable. (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., 2006 ACJ (SC) 1336. of owner is not barred under the Act. Bar is only against using vehicle for carrying passengers on hire. In that case there was no evidence to prove that victims travelled on fare and so the insurer was held liable. (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., 2006 ACJ (SC) 1336. In this case it was held that if the driver has licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and he was driving a jeep which was being plied as a taxi a commercial vehicle then the insurance Company will pay the amount to the claimants who are injured in the accident but then it may recover the amount paid by it from the owner by n initiating proceedings before the Executing Court. 6. In the present case also, if we go through the statement of the witnesses of d k claimants then we come to know that AW-2 Man Singh has admitted in cross-examination that three persons were sitting in the car except the driver and he ;e'.ad agreed to pay Rs. 30/- as fare to the driver and out of the three passengers his co-passenger Ummed Singh had expired because the car had turned up side down because of the negligence of its driver Bheru Singh. Thus, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing award against the Insurance Company and respondent No. 4 giving a right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount it:aid by it to the claimants, from the owner of the vehicle in terms of the United India Insurance Company v. K.M. Poonam & Ors. , (supra) also appears needful to us additionally. 7. Then comes the justification of the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. Age of the deceased was rightly determined by the Tribunal as 55 years at the time of e-is death. The Tribunal had determined the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 5000/- and looking to the evidence on record, this Court is also of the view that monthly income of the deceased was rightly determined as Rs. 5,000/-. After deducing ⅓ of the income of the deceased towards his self expenses, multiplier of 10 was applied by the Tribunal for calculating of the quantum of just compensation and that also appears perfectly justified and so I am in full agreement with the calculation of compensation made by the Tribunal and so the award of Rs. 4,10,000/- ( Rs. After deducing ⅓ of the income of the deceased towards his self expenses, multiplier of 10 was applied by the Tribunal for calculating of the quantum of just compensation and that also appears perfectly justified and so I am in full agreement with the calculation of compensation made by the Tribunal and so the award of Rs. 4,10,000/- ( Rs. Four Lacs and Ten Thousand only) passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants Ugam Kanwar & Ors. does not deserve to be disturbed at all. Rate of interest prevailing at that time was 12% P.A., so the interest rate also does not deserve to be modified in this appeal. Thus, the quantum of compensation and rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is kept undisturbed in this appeal but the Insurance Company is herby given a right that whatsoever amount to pays to the claimants (respondents No. 1, 2 and 3), it will be entitled to recover the same from the registered owner-cum-driver Bheru Singh who is respondent No. 4 before us. Appellant has not paid any amount after the award passed by the Tribunal so it is expected from the Insurance Company that it will pay the award amount by the earliest to respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in this sixteen years old claim. The awarded amount, if recovered be kept in a fixed deposit in the names of respondents No. 1 to 3 for one year in a Nationalised Bank and then it will be payable to them in equal share. The appeal is partly accepted accordingly. Record of the Tribunal be sent with a copy of this judgment immediately. A copy of this judgment be also sent to claimant Smt. Ugam Kanwar by speed post within five days.Appeal partly allowed. *******