JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the challenge in both these appeals is to judgment and award, dated 4th October, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 30 of 2007, titled as Soma Devi and others versus Shri Mani Ram and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 4,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The ownerinsured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants, by the medium of FAO No. 100 of 2011, have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The insurer has called in question the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 142 of 2011 on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability as there was no contract between the transferee of the offending vehicle and the insurer. 5. Before determining the question as to whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise, I deem it proper to determine as to whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. FAO No. 142 of 2011: 6. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer at the relevant point of time. Mere transfer of the vehicle is not enough to absolve the insurer from its liability. The insurer has to follow mandate of the law, which it has not. Thus, the insurer is liable till the expiry of the insurance contract. 7. This Court while dealing with the issue of the same and similar nature in FAO No. 7 of 2007 titled Ashok Kumar & another versus Smt. Kamla Devi & others, decided on 5.9.2014, held that transfer of a vehicle cannot absolve the insurer. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 19 of the said judgment herein:- “15. Section 157 of the Act reads as under:- “Transfer of certificate of insurance. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 19 of the said judgment herein:- “15. Section 157 of the Act reads as under:- “Transfer of certificate of insurance. (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance. (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” While going through the aforesaid provision, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that transfer of a vehicle cannot absolve insurer from third party liability and the insurer has to satisfy the award. 16. Admittedly, on the date of accident, i.e. 05.06.2000, the offending vehicle was not transferred in the name of appellant-Ashok Kumar. It was transferred in his name w.e.f. 17.06.2000. Thereafter, the appellant-respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar was supposed to give information regarding transfer of the vehicle to the insurer-Insurance Company. The vehicle was not transferred on the date of accident, thus the question of informing the insurer about the transfer of the vehicle does not arise, at all. If the offending vehicle would have been transferred on the date of accident, i.e. 5th June, 2000, that can not be a ground to defeat the rights of the third party. As per the mandate of the Section (supra), the insurance policy shall be deemed to have been issued in favour of the transferee. 17. If the offending vehicle would have been transferred on the date of accident, i.e. 5th June, 2000, that can not be a ground to defeat the rights of the third party. As per the mandate of the Section (supra), the insurance policy shall be deemed to have been issued in favour of the transferee. 17. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court Judgment in case titled as G. Govindan versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1398 . It is apt to reproduce paras10, 13 & 15 of the aforesaid judgment herein: “10. This Court in the said judgment held that the provisions under the new Act and the old Act are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third party. This Court also recognised the view taken in the separate judgment in Kondaiah's case that the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. In other words, a victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee. 11. …………………… 12. …………………... 13. In our opinion that both under the old Act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It appears that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit, presumably in view of the conflicting decisions on this aspect among the various High Courts. 14. ……………………. 15. As between the two conflicting views of the Full Bench judgments noticed above, we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 62) as it advances the object of the Legislature to protect the third party interest. We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. In other words in accord with the wellsettled rule of interpretation of statutes we are inclined to hold that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case is preferable to the contrary views taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) even assuming that two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant sections as it promotes the object of the Legislature in protecting the third party (victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the judgment of Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (AIR 1990 Kant 166 (FB) and AIR 1989 Delhi 88) (FB) (supra) differing from Andhra Pradesh High Court is not the correct one.” 18. The Apex Court in case titled as Rikhi Ram and another versus Smt. Sukhrania and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1446 held that in absence of intimation of transfer to Insurance Company, the liability of Insurance Company does not cease. It is apt to reproduce paras 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment, supra, herein:- “5. The aforesaid provision shows that it was intended to cover two legal objectives. Firstly, that no one who was not a party to a contract would bring an action on a contract; and secondly, that a person who has no interest in the subject matter of an insurance can claim the benefit of an insurance. Thus, once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 94 does not provide that any person who will use the vehicle shall insure the vehicle in respect of his separate use. 6. On an analysis of Ss. 94 and 95, we further find that there are two third parties when a vehicle is transferred by the owner to a purchaser. The purchaser is one of the third parties to the contract and other third party is for whose benefit the vehicle was insured. So far, the transferee who is the third party in the contract, cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act. However, so far as third party injured or victim is concerned, he can enforce liability undertaken by the insurer. 7. So far, the transferee who is the third party in the contract, cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act. However, so far as third party injured or victim is concerned, he can enforce liability undertaken by the insurer. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that whenever a vehicle which is covered by the insurance policy is transferred to a transferee, the liability of insurer does not ceases so far as the third party/victim is concerned, even if the owner or purchaser does not give any intimation as required under the provisions of the Act.” 19. The Apex Court in latest judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla versus Tilak Singh and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 has held the same principle. It is apt to reproduce paras12 & 13 of the said judgment herein:- “12. In Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania [ (2003) 3 SCC 97 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 735] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had occasion to consider Section 103A of the 1939 Act. This Court reaffirmed the decision in G. Govindan case and added that the liability of an insurer does not cease even if the owner or purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the Insurance Company, as the purpose of the legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party. 13. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under Section 103A of the 1939 Act or under Section 157 of the 1988 Act insofar as the liability towards a third party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the Tribunal. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the 1988 Act had come into force. Hence it is the 1988 Act which would govern the situation.” 8. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in FAO No. 164 of 2007, titled as Sh. Vipan Kumar versus Naushad Ahmed and another, decided on 28.11.2014, and FAO No. 207 of 2007, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Santoshi Devi & others, decided on 13.03.2015. 9. Having said so, the insurer cannot plead that it is not liable and the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. Accordingly, FAO No. 142 of 2011 merits to be dismissed. FAO No. 100 of 2011: 10. I have gone through the record. It appears that the amount awarded is inadequate for the following reasons: 11. The claimants have specifically averred that deceased-Daya Nand was a businessman and was earning 20,000/- per month. 12. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the income of the deceased as 4,000/- per month. Even if we treat the deceased as a labourer, he would not have been earning less than 6,000/- per month. 13. The appellants-claimants, alongwith the appeal, have laid a motion, being CMP No. 148 of 2011 and have annexed therewith the photocopies of documents, which do disclose that the deceased had obtained certain insurance policies and had a good income. 13. Keeping in view the averments contained in the claim petition read with the evidence and other documents on the file, it can be safely held, by exercising guess work, that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than 6,000/-. After deducting onefourth towards personal expenses of the deceased, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of 4,500/- per month. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of the accident. After deducting onefourth towards personal expenses of the deceased, it is held that the claimants have lost source of income to the tune of 4,500/- per month. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of the accident. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), multiplier of 11' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. 15. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of 4,500/- x12 x 11 = 5,94,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. 16. The claimants are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 17. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of 5,94,000/-+10,000/-+10,000/-+10,000/-+10,000/-=6,34,000/- withinterest as awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, FAO No. 100 of 2011 is allowed, FAO No. 142 of 2011 is dismissed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 19. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before this Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 20. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.