ORDER 1. As these two appeals arise out of same award dated 10.3.2005 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal FTC (for short the Tribunal) Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 159 of 2004, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 15.8.2004 when deceased Goverdhan Prasad Kaushik was going to Bilaspur on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-BB/8881, he was dashed by a newly sold Ikon Ford car (for convenience offending vehicle) resulting in his death on the same day. 3. Claim case was filed by the claimants who are widow, mother and three major sons of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs. 26,25,000/- in their favour inter alia pleading that at the time of accident the deceased was working as Government teacher and was getting Rs. 6,536/- per month as salary, that he was aged about 51 years at the relevant time and as the accident leading to his death occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver which was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. suitable compensation may be awarded to them. 4. Insurance company contested the claim on general grounds and denied its liability. It further took a stand that it is a case of contributory negligence and had the deceased been careful while riding the motorcycle, the accident could not have taken place. However, by the award impugned the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,87,106/- in favour of the claimants and it is this award which is under challenge in these appeals. Tribunal has further held that claimant No. 1 wife of the deceased and claimant No. 5 - mother of the deceased alone are entitled for compensation. 5. Counsel for the appellant/insurance company in M.A. No. 746 of 2005 makes the following submissions in respect of his case:- (i) That though there exists insurance policy of the offending vehicle in the name of respondent No. 7 namely J.S. Bagga, as the vehicle was not registered in his name, it cannot be said that there was any contract between him and the insurance company. (ii) That J.S. Bagga has denied his ownership over the offending vehicle and thus even assuming that the policy was issued in his name, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. 6. (ii) That J.S. Bagga has denied his ownership over the offending vehicle and thus even assuming that the policy was issued in his name, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. 6. Replying to the arguments of the counsel for appellant/insurance company in this case it has been argued by counsel for respondents/claimants as under:- (i) That the vehicle in question was a newly purchased one and the same was insured by the appellant/insurance company categorically showing the name of its owner as J.S. Bagga and thus the insurance company cannot escape from its liability merely on the ground that on the date of accident the vehicle in question was not registered in the name of J.S. Bagga. (ii) That as soon as the vehicle is purchased, its insurance is done immediately in the name of the owner and even if it takes some days to get the vehicle registered in the name of the owner, non-registration of the vehicle would not make any difference after the insurance company has accepted the premium of the newly purchased vehicle. (iii) That denial of ownership of the vehicle in question by J.S. Bagga is of no help to the insurance company because the owner may have the apprehension in his mind that if he accepts his ownership, liability would be fastened on him also. 7. Counsel for the appellants/claimants company in M.A. No. 111 of 2006 makes the following submissions in respect of his case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal:- (i) That the Tribunal has erred in law in holding the deceased to have contributory negligence for causing the accident and thereby deducting 10% of the award amount. (ii) That the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1000/- towards future prospects which in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Serla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 should be 30% of the actual income. (iii) That the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,960/- whereas it should be Rs. 6,536/-. (iv) That the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. 8. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company in this case however submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not need any enhancement in this appeal. 9. 4,960/- whereas it should be Rs. 6,536/-. (iv) That the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. 8. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company in this case however submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not need any enhancement in this appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 10. So far as M.A. No. 746 of 2005 preferred by the insurance company is concerned, from the material available on record it is clear that the offending vehicle was purchased by J.S. Bagga on 13.8.2004 and when the driver was going to give delivery of the vehicle, it met with an accident on the way resulting in the death of Goverdhan Prasad Kaushik. As per the un-exhibited photocopy of the sale certificate, the offending vehicle was sold by the dealer to Shri Bagga. Furthermore, insurance policy Ex. D-1 goes to show that the said vehicle was duly insured with the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. covering the risk from 9.8.2004 to 8.8.2005. In the said policy name of J.S. Bagga has been specifically shown as owner of the said vehicle. Thus merely on the basis of non registration of the vehicle in the name of J.S. Bagga would be of no help to the insurance company. Likewise, denial on the part of J.S. Bagga regarding ownership of the vehicle is also of no help either to himself or the insurance company. Once the vehicle was sold to Shri Bagga and the same was duly insured under the package policy Ex. D-1, insurance company cannot get rid of its liability to compensate the claimants. Mere non registration of the vehicle will not nullify the insurance policy duly issued in favour of the owner. After introduction of law making the insurance compulsory most of the time after purchasing the vehicle and getting the same insured the owner takes away the vehicle without being duly registered with the office of the RTO. Almost in all the case it takes some time for the owner to get the vehicle registered with the RTO but that does not mean that the person who has purchased the vehicle is not covered with the insurance policy for which he has already paid the premium and got in his favour the cover note. Almost in all the case it takes some time for the owner to get the vehicle registered with the RTO but that does not mean that the person who has purchased the vehicle is not covered with the insurance policy for which he has already paid the premium and got in his favour the cover note. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. So far as the appeal M.A. No. 111 of 2006, preferred by the claimants is concerned, Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,960/-. Salary slip Ex. P-10 goes to show that the deceased was having the monthly income of Rs. 6,536/- and according to the statements of the witnesses it is Rs. 6,436/-. Thus the monthly income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 6,436/-. Towards future prospects, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- which is in gross violation of the settled legal position prevailing on the day. In view of the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Serla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 30% of actual income is required to be added to the actual income which in this case comes to Rs. 1,930/- leading to his monthly income as Rs. 8,366/- and doing so his annual income comes to Rs. 1,00,392/-. Now deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses, the amount which the deceased was contributing to the claimants comes to Rs. 66,928/- which applying multiplier of 13 comes to Rs. 8,70,064/-. Likewise, the amount of Rs. 32,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads appears to be on the lower side and that being so it is enhanced to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- and adding this amount the total awardable compensation to the claimants comes to Rs. 9,20,064/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,87,106/- the same needs to be deducted and doing so the enhanced compensation for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 3,32,958/-. This enhanced amount of Rs. 3,32,958/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. 12. 9,20,064/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,87,106/- the same needs to be deducted and doing so the enhanced compensation for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 3,32,958/-. This enhanced amount of Rs. 3,32,958/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. 12. Finding of the Tribunal deducting 10% of the total amount of compensation towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased appears to be prima facie incorrect as for giving such a finding there has to be evidence which unfortunately is amiss herein. 13. So far as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, it is a settled legal position that burden of proof lies on the party alleging the same. Insurance company taking such a plea must prove it by leading cogent evidence regarding the same. Insurance company must state that there was some casual connection of the deceased with the damage suffered by him to hold that conduct of the deceased amounted to contributory negligence. Similarly, there has to be some evidence showing absence of reasonable care on the part of the deceased for his own safety which contributed to the damage. 14. Thus the appeal preferred by the insurance company (M.A. No. 746 of 2005) is dismissed and the other one preferred by the claimants (M.A. No. 111 of 2006) is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification in the award under challenge. Appeal Partly Allowed.