ORDER : Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Assailing the legality and validity of the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2015 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), East Sikkim at Gangtok in MACT Case No. 17 of 2014, where under and whereby the Tribunal has determined and ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,15,800/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Fifteen thousand and Eight hundred) only with interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 15.09.2014, till full and final payment, to the Claimants (the Respondents herein), the instant Appeal under provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MVA") is filed. 2. The Appellant/ Insurance Company, feeling aggrieved, has come up with the instant Appeal, on the ground, inter alia, that the liability of the Appellant/Insurer is limited as per the Insurance Policy as being the 'Act Policy'. Further, it is the case of the Appellant/Insurer that the liability is confined to the passengers and also under Workmen's Compensation to an employee involved in the accident, in question. The owner himself, being the driver, is not entitled to any compensation under the 'Act Policy'. It is contended that the legal heirs of the Insured/owner of the vehicle are not entitled to any relief as a person cannot be claimant as well as recipient under the scheme. The legal heirs of the Insured are second party and, as such, not entitled to any relief under the Policy. The deceased owner-cum-driver had violated the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of MVA, which prescribes that no person shall drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme. It is also faintly contended that the deceased was not permitted to drive commercial vehicle but only light motor vehicle non-transport. Further contention is that under provisions of Section 163A of MVA, the Claimants/legal heirs of the Insured/owner of the motor vehicle are not entitled to any amount as the instant case was not filed under provisions of Section 166 of MVA. 3. The facts, as culled out from the pleadings and impugned Judgment and Award, are that the deceased, being aged about 32 years, was the owner-cum-driver. 3. The facts, as culled out from the pleadings and impugned Judgment and Award, are that the deceased, being aged about 32 years, was the owner-cum-driver. He was driving the vehicle, bearing registration No. SK-01-J-2745 registered as Taxi, from Dung Dung, Ralap to Singtam to drop a passenger on 12.08.2014, when the vehicle met with an accident at around 11:30 a.m. about 20 km away from the Singtam Police Station. The owner-cum-driver succumbed to injuries on the spot. The Claimants (the Respondents herein), being wife, minor son and daughter of the deceased, filed the claim petition under provisions of Section 163A of MVA against the Insurer/Appellant herein. 4. Learned Member of the Tribunal, considering all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the deceased was driving the vehicle as an employee, i.e. driver, earning a sum of Rs. 3,325/- (Rupees Three thousand Three hundred and Twenty Five) only per month. Applying the multiplier of 17, keeping in view the age of the deceased and after deducting ?rd from the total earning, the Tribunal determined the compensation on account of Loss of Earning to the tune of Rs. 4,52,200/- (Rupees Four lakhs Fifty Two thousand and Two hundred) only and, thereafter, on account of Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium, Future Prospects and Non-pecuniary Damages, it was determined in total to the tune of Rs. 8,15,800/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Fifteen thousand and Eight hundred) only. 5. Learned Member of the Tribunal further directed that the said amount shall earn interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 15.09.2014, till full and final payment. Out of the total amount, the amount of Rs.7,15,800/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Fifteen thousand Eight hundred) only was directed to be equally divided amongst the Claimants 1, 2 and 3; 50% of the share of the minor Claimants 2 and 3 to be deposited in any nationalised bank and remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only was directed to be paid to the Claimant No. 1, on account of loss of consortium. 6. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, in support of his submissions as afore-stated taken in the Appeal, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only was directed to be paid to the Claimant No. 1, on account of loss of consortium. 6. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, in support of his submissions as afore-stated taken in the Appeal, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Bai and others, (2006) 9 SCC 174 and that of the Jharkhand High Court in Babi Bala Devi and others v. Ramlal Nonia and another, 2011 ACJ 79 . 7. Countering the afore-stated submissions, Mr. Ajay Rathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants (Respondents herein), would fairly submit that the Claimants are entitled to not the entire amount on account of other heads except the Loss of Earning to the tune of Rs. 4,60,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and Sixty thousand) only as the claim petition was filed under provisions of Section 163A of MVA. 8. It is further contended that notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was insured as owner of the vehicle, which was registered as 'Taxi' and used for commercial purposes, he had employed himself as a driver and was earning monthly salary as driver. As such, he is entitled to compensation as an employee under the policy. Referring to the Certificate of Insurance-cum-Policy Schedule bearing No. 150608/31/13/6700006220, it is submitted that the 'Driver Clause', as prescribed under heading 'Limitation as to use', prescribes that any person, including the insured holding an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of vehicle insured at the time of accident, is entitled to compensation under heading 'WC to employee 1' wherein the requisite premium was Rs. 50/-. It is further contended that under sub-heading 'Limits of Liability': under Section II 1(i) in respect of an accident, the compensation is determinable as per MVA when there is a limit in respect of any claim under Section II 1(ii) which deals with damage and loss to the property. 9. Learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents, would further contend that it is not a case where the owner was driving the vehicle though he was not employed as driver. In the case on hand, the deceased himself was a driver of the said vehicle though the vehicle was owned by him and, as such, he was rightly held as an employee i.e. driver of the said vehicle. 10. In the case on hand, the deceased himself was a driver of the said vehicle though the vehicle was owned by him and, as such, he was rightly held as an employee i.e. driver of the said vehicle. 10. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused pleadings, impugned Judgment and Award and also documents appended thereto. 11. On bare perusal of the policy, it is eloquent that the policy wherein the liability to total 10 (ten) passengers and WC liability of an employee, namely the driver, was specified. Accordingly, a premium was paid for the employee, which was fixed at Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty) only. The vehicle, Mahindra Commander Jeep, was registered as a Taxi and used as a commercial vehicle. As stated herein above, the Insured/owner was also permitted to drive the vehicle as a driver as specified in "Drivers Clause" of the policy. It has come on record, which is not refuted, that the Insured owner-cum-employee as driver was drawing monthly salary. Accordingly, the compensation was determined after deducting ?rd as required under law by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 12. The Insured/owner, if he is self employed as a driver and also drawing salary, is entitled to compensation under the policy. Mr. Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has relied on an order of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court referring and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 553, held that the owner, who was driving the vehicle, was not covered under the policy. The facts in the case are distinguishable as the owner employed as driver is fully covered under "Drivers Clause" and, as such, his dependents are entitled to compensation under the policy. 13. Mr. Bhutia had further relied on a decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Babi Bala Devi (supra), wherein the owner of the tractor was not covered under the policy while driving the said tractor. In such given facts, it was held that the insurance company has no liability for compensation. 14. 13. Mr. Bhutia had further relied on a decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Babi Bala Devi (supra), wherein the owner of the tractor was not covered under the policy while driving the said tractor. In such given facts, it was held that the insurance company has no liability for compensation. 14. It is well settled proposition of law that if the owner is not covered for bodily injury or death under the policy and he drives the vehicle without there being regular driver of the said vehicle, he is not entitled to compensation under the policy as held in Dhanraj (supra). In the case on hand, the facts are entirely different as the owner was self employed as driver and drawing proper and regular salary and was also covered under "Drivers Clause" of the policy. Thus, the Judgments/Orders (supra) dealing with Insurance Company's liability in respect of bodily injury or death of the owner, are not applicable to the instant case. 15. On examination, it is found that the driving licence held by the deceased was valid at the time of accident for driving commercial light vehicle also. 16. The second limb of contention is that the claim petition was made under provisions of Section 163A of MVA. Thus, the claimants are not entitled to exorbitant amount under the headings of Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium, Future Prospects and Non-pecuniary Damages. Mr. Rathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants (Respondents herein), advancing fair submission, explicitly states that the Claimants are not entitled to the exorbitant amount under other heads, concurring with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company. 17. Section 163A of MVA reads as under: - "[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 18. Indisputably, the application was filed invoking jurisdiction under Section 163A, wherein it is clearly, inter alia, provided that the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. I am not dealing with other clauses, which are not relevant in the facts of the case. It is a case of death. Under the Second Schedule, the Tribunal has applied multiplies 17, taking into consideration the age of the victim which was 32 years. Further, ?rd so deducted was calculated as contemplated under Note in the Schedule. The Schedule prescribes General Damages (in case of death) as under: - "3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlines above: - (i) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium, if Beneficiary is the spouse Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500/- (iv) Medical Expenses actual Expenses incurred before death Supported by bills/vouchers but Not exceeding Rs. 15,000/." 19. In the case on hand, the Claimant No. 1 is spouse of the victim. Accordingly, the compensation amount awarded is modified as under: - 1. Loss of earning Rs. 4,52,200.00 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000.00 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500.00 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 4,61,700.00 The Claimants are not entitled to compensation under other heads, i.e. Future Prospects and Non-pecuniary damages as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, the total amount is determined to the tune of Rs. Loss of earning Rs. 4,52,200.00 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000.00 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500.00 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 4,61,700.00 The Claimants are not entitled to compensation under other heads, i.e. Future Prospects and Non-pecuniary damages as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, the total amount is determined to the tune of Rs. 4,61,700/- (Rupees Four lakhs Sixty One thousand and Seven hundred) only, which shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs. 4,56,700/- (Rupees Four lakhs Fifty Six thousand and Seven hundred) only shall be equally divided amongst the Claimants 1, 2 and 3; 50% of the share of the minor Claimants 2 and 3 shall be deposited in any nationalised bank. The amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only, from the total amount of Rs. 4,61,700/- (Rupees Four lakhs Sixty One thousand and Seven hundred) only, shall be paid separately to the Claimant No. 1 (the Respondent No. 1 herein), on account of Loss of Consortium. 21. As a sequel, the Appeal is allowed in part. The ward is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.