JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda and Kishtwar for short, the Tribunal. These appeals arising out of a single accident which happened on 08.05.2008 are disposed of by a common order. 2. The ill fated Bus bearing Registration No. JK02N-2236 was proceeding from Kishtwar to Jammu. While going on hilly terrain, it rolled down the road near Barta Bridge, Hasti due to which 37 persons died and 03 were injured. The total seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 27 including the Driver and Conductor. The driver of the offending vehicle also died in the said accident. The offending vehicle was admittedly overloaded with 14 passengers. 3. It appears that an issue was framed by the Tribunal on overloading, but the Insurance Company however, did not lead any evidence to prove any breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy that the offending vehicle was overloaded or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid Driving license. 4. The plea of the appellant-Insurance Company is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & Ors., 2007 ACJ 2129 , Insurance Company would at best be liable only for 27 passengers and thereafter it is the owner of the offending vehicle, who has to satisfy the award for rest of the claimants. In this case the Tribunal failed to grant that relief. It is further pleaded that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam & Ors. 2011 ACJ 917 , the Insurance Company should be given option of paying the compensation and recovering the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment Anjana Shyam's case (supra) held that:- "16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately." 6. In United India Insurance Co. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 26, held as follows:- "26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons traveling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case, 2007 ACJ 2129 CSC). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case." 7. In this batch the claim made consequent to the accident is apparently more than the vehicles passenger carrying capacity. The records speak for itself. The Insurance Company in any case can be made liable only to the extent of its insurance cover. Hence the said plea is accepted. 8. In view of the first plea, foremost thing is to identify those 27 passengers for whom, Insurance Company is liable and other claims which the Insurance Company to satisfy and recover from the owner of the vehicle. 9. In terms of Anjana Shyam's case (supra), 27 highest claims shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company and balance will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitle to recover the same from the owner of vehicle as per K.M. Poonam's case (supra). 10. 9. In terms of Anjana Shyam's case (supra), 27 highest claims shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company and balance will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitle to recover the same from the owner of vehicle as per K.M. Poonam's case (supra). 10. Insofar as issue regarding reduction of compensation is concerned, the Court is inclined to take up both the cases separately. CIMA No. 16/2013 11. This appeal is of the year 2013. 12. It is a case of fatal accident. For the death of Raies Munwar, bachelor 18 years old at the time of accident, who was a private tutor besides undergoing training of Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW) and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month, claimants viz. father, two brothers and one sister of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 15,10,000/- as compensation. 13. The Tribunal in terms of Schedule-II appended to Motor Vehicle Act, fixed the notional income of the deceased-Raies Munwar at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and by adopting multiplier of 18, granted compensation under the following heads: 1. Compensation on account of total future loss of Dependency. Rs.2,70,000/- 2. Compensation on account of loss of estate Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of funeral Expenses Rs,5,000/- 14. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization. 15. In appeal, appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award on the ground that as per the finding of the Tribunal none of the sibling are dependent on the deceased-Raies Munwar. The father of the deceased is a retired Govt. employee and hence not dependent on the deceased. The mother of the deceased is not alive. The other claimants are elder brothers and sister of the deceased who are also not dependent upon the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that claimants are not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Raies Munwar. 16. It is not in dispute that in this case the father of the based is a retired Govt. employee. The other claimants elder brothers and sister of the deceased. No evidence is let in to show that one or the other claimant was dependent on the deceased-Raies Munwar. 16. It is not in dispute that in this case the father of the based is a retired Govt. employee. The other claimants elder brothers and sister of the deceased. No evidence is let in to show that one or the other claimant was dependent on the deceased-Raies Munwar. 17. In this view of the matter, a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- granted by the Tribunal on account of pecuniary loss to dependents is set aside. However, claimants being legal representatives of the deceased-Raies Munwar, they will be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for the death. For burial expenses they will be entitled to Rs. 20,000/-. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection. Claimants will be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- each on account of loss of love and affection. 18. Therefore, award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are found entitled to the following compensation. S.No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified Award 1. Compensation on account of total future loss of Dependency. Rs.2,70,000/- deleted Rs.50,000/- 2. Compensation on account of loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- 4. For love and affection Nil Rs.2,80,000/- Rs.30,000/- each i.e. Rs.30,000 x 4 = Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.1,95,000/- 19. The award is reduced to Rs. 1,95,000/-. 20. The interest granted by the Tribunal @ 7% is confirmed. 21. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount, if not, already deposited. On deposit of the amount claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same. CIMA No. D-254/2011 22. This appeal is of the year 2011. 23. It is a case of fatal accident. The deceased-Abdul Rashid, aged 52 years old at the time of accident was a labourer, agriculturist and dairy farmer said to be earning Rs. 10,000 per month. The wife and six children made a claim before the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal after fixing the income as Rs. 7000/- per month on the basis of oral evidence of Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Rafi, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 11, awarded the following compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,20,400/- 2. For funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 3. For loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- 4. For love and affection Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,45,000/- 25. Loss of dependency Rs.6,20,400/- 2. For funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 3. For loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- 4. For love and affection Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,45,000/- 25. In this appeal, it is pleaded that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and, therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 26. Taking note of the fact that the claimants are wife and six children of the deceased of which two are minors, and since no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the claimants, the excess amount, if any, can be adjusted towards the head of love and affection. No ground is made out for reduction. Accordingly, appeal on quantum of compensation is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed.