JUDGMENT : M.K. Mudgal, J. By this judgment both the miscellaneous appeals bearing MA No. 2808/10 and 3089/10 which have arisen from the award dated 14-05-2010 passed by XIX Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 220/09, are being decided simultaneously. 2. In this appeal the appellants of MA No. 2808/10 are referred to as the Applicants, the respondent No. 1 Ram Naresh, who was the driver of the offending vehicle referred to as the non-applicant No. 1, the respondent No. 2 Upendra Gautam, who was the registered owner of the said vehicle referred to as the non-applicant No. 2, the respondent No. 3 Royal Sundram Allianze, which insured the said vehicle referred to as the non-applicant No. 3 and the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sundaria, who is the mother of the deceased referred to as the non-applicant No. 4. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 2 Upendra Gautam was the registered owner of the offending vehicle Marshal Max bearing No. MP17-TA-0206, which was being driven at 5:30 am on 01-10-2008 by the non-applicant No. 1 Ram Naresh Patel, who was engaged as a driver. The said vehicle was insured by the non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company for the period from 29-09-2008 to 28-09-2009 vide the Insurance Policy Ex.D/1. The non-applicant No. 1 was holding a Driving Licence to drive LMV vide Ex.D/2. The alleged incident took place at 5:30 am on 01-10-2008 when the said vehicle was being driven by the non-applicant No. 1 and it dashed an unknown truck. The deceased Shabbir Mohammed Khan, who was travelling in the said vehicle, sustained severe injuries and as a result of which he died. The applicant No. 1 to 5 and Non-applicant No. 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased. 4. Facts in brief of the case are that the deceased Shabbir Mohammed Khan was going from Satna to his native village Sirmour at 5:30 am on 01-10-2008 by Marshal Max bearing No. MP17-TA-0206, which was being driven by the non-applicant No. 1 in a very negligent manner and dashed with an unknown truck near Satna-Rewa Batia turn. The deceased sustained severe injuries and as a result of which he died. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 589/08 (Ex.P/2) was lodged at the Police Station, Rampur Baghelan. The deceased sustained severe injuries and as a result of which he died. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 589/08 (Ex.P/2) was lodged at the Police Station, Rampur Baghelan. The applicants filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,30,000/- alleging that monthly income of the deceases was 21,528/- and there were five persons dependents on the deceased and were deprived of the means of their livelihood. The applicants have claimed the damages as stated earlier. 5. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 failed to appear before the Claims Tribunal and did not file any reply to deny the allegations made in the claim petition. Non-applicant No. 3 submitting its reply and denying the averments made in the claim petition has pleaded that the driver, the non-applicant No. 1, who was involved in the accident, was not having a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle owing to which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the damages as claimed by the applicants in their petition. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the parties passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs. 24,53,600/- and non-applicant No. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the said compensation to the applicants along with the interest jointly or severely. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the applicants have filed MA No. 28-08-10 for enhancement of the award and the non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the award holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of the compensation by it. 8. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, the recorded evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal it is not disputed that the deceased died in the alleged incident and the offending vehicle was being driven by the non-applicant No. 1. The age of the deceased was 47 years when the alleged incident took place. The monthly income of the deceased has been determined to be Rs.23,400/- per month, which has not been challenged by any party and the compensation was determined by multiplier of 13, which has also not been challenged by anyone of them. 9. The age of the deceased was 47 years when the alleged incident took place. The monthly income of the deceased has been determined to be Rs.23,400/- per month, which has not been challenged by any party and the compensation was determined by multiplier of 13, which has also not been challenged by anyone of them. 9. The questions that arise that for consideration in these appeals are that :- (i) Whether the Claims Tribunal has committed any error in assessing the compensation by deducting the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/3rd of his income whereas there were six dependents of the deceased when he died ? (ii) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation ? Issue No. 1 10. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there were six dependents of the deceased when he died because the applicant No. 1 to 5 are his wife and children and the non-applicant No. 4 is his mother. Where the number of dependents of the deceased was more than four, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been assessed as 1/4th of his income but the learned Claims Tribunal having considered the evidence on record has deduced 1/3rd of his income towards for his personal expenses. The said findings are against the judgment of Sarla Verma and other v. Delhi Transport Corporation and other 2009 Vol. 4 MPHT Page 99. 11. On perusal of the record and the statements of the witnesses, it can be safely inferred that there were six persons dependents on the deceased when he died. In Para 21 of the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount of the deceased income for his personal expenses. In the Sarla Verma judgment which has been referred towards the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 13 and 14 of the said judgment that when the number of dependents family members are more than four, the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of his income, therefore it is concluded that the compensation ought to have been assessed on the basis of deduction of 1/4th income for the personal expenses of the deceased. 12. The income of the deceased has been determined in Para 20 of the impugned award as Rs.23,400/-. 12. The income of the deceased has been determined in Para 20 of the impugned award as Rs.23,400/-. After deduction of 1/4th of the said amount, the dependency of the legal heirs of the deceased would be Rs.17,550/- per month and the multiplier by 12 is equal to Rs.2,10,600/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, the compensation is to be assessed by the multiplier 13 as per Para 21 of the impugned award on the basis of which the compensation on this count would work at Rs.27,37,800/-. The said multiplier is just and proper. As per Para 21 of the award only Rs.20,000/- has been allowed for funeral expenses, consortium etc. which is not only improper but also megre. No amount for loss of love and affection to the wife and children has been awarded, therefore Rs.70,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses, consortium and love and affection etc. In this manner, the total amount of compensation is determined at Rs. 28,07,800/-. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,53,600/- as the amount of compensation, therefore Rs.28,07,800 - 24,53,600/- = the actual amount of Rs. 3,54,200/- is additionally awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. 13. The issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. Issue No. 2 14. Learned counsel for the non-applicant no.3 submits that the non-applicant no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle, had a only valid licence to drive L.M.V., therefore, he was authorised to drive only L.M.V. on the basis of the driving licence Ex.D/2. But, there was no endorsement on the Ex.D/2 authorising him to drive a transport vehicle because of that he was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the alleged incident. In the said circumstances, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court placing reliance upon a judgment of National Insurance Co. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 2 SCC 721 held the insurance company responsible for payment of the compensation awarded in the impugned judgment. But the rational of the said judgment is not applicable in this case because in the said case the incident occurred on 23.05.1998 before the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 2 SCC 721 held the insurance company responsible for payment of the compensation awarded in the impugned judgment. But the rational of the said judgment is not applicable in this case because in the said case the incident occurred on 23.05.1998 before the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. The said amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act came into force from 28.03.2001 wherein transport vehicle has been defined under Clause 47 of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3 thereof requires the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. Learned counsel placing reliance upon a judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others, 2009 (2) ACCD 1122 (SC) has contended that in the instant case, the alleged incident took place on 1.10.1998 after commencement of the amended provision. In the said circumstances it is inferred that the driving licence Ex.D/2 which non-applicant no.1 had carried no such endorsement to drive transport vehicle. The said licence was only valid to drive L.M.V., therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 15. Learned counsel for the applicants controverting the submissions made on behalf of the non-applicant no. 3 and placing reliance upon the judgments of S. Iyyapan v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2013 (3) TAC 392 (S.C.) and Kulwant Singh and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2014 (4) T.A.C. 676 (S.C.) has contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the Insurance company liable to pay the compensation. 16. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the impugned award. 17. Indisputably, the alleged incident took place on 1.10.2008 after commencement of the amended provision wherein the transport vehicle is defined under Clause 47 of Section 2 of the Act. There is no dispute between both the parties about the offending vehicle being transport vehicle. The issue involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Angad Kol (supra), on the basis of which, it is concluded that the non-applicant no.1 was having a L.M.V. driving licence on the basis of which he was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle i.e. offending vehicle. In the instant case, the offending vehicle was the transport vehicle. In the instant case, the offending vehicle was the transport vehicle. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants do not support the submissions made by him because the case of S. Iyyapan (supra) is related to the accident that occurred on 23.5.1998 before the amendment in the Act and the judgment of Kulwant Singh (supra) is based on the judgment of S. Iyyapan (supra) whereas the date of incident in this case is 01-10-2008. Therefore, both the judgments do not help the applicants in this case. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is concluded that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and so the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay for the compensation but the claimants are the third party of the policy, in the interest of justice it would be apt that the Insurance company be directed to pay the entire amount to the claimants as it is the liability of the insurer under Motor Vehicle Act to pay the compensation to the third party i.e. the claimants because the liability of the Insurance Company is a statutory one as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyapan (supra) wherein several other judgments of the same intent have been referred to but the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle because it was not the case of non-applicant No. 1 & 2 that there was endorsement in the Ex.D/2 to drive the transport vehicle. 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, Miscellaneous appeal no. 2808/2010 is partly allowed and an amount of Rs.3,54,200/- is enhanced and the said amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment. The said amount shall be disbursed among the applicants and the non-applicant no. 4 according to the learned Claims Tribunal award. 19. Miscellaneous appeal no. 3089/2010 filed by the Insurance company is partly allowed holding that though the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in the instance case but the said company shall pay the entire amount to the claimants and the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the non-applicants no. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner. 20. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 21. Cost of the appeals shall be borne by the respondent No. 1 & 2 i.e. drive and owner.