JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)—Since, both the appeals arise from a common award, rendered by the learned MACT-III, Solan, upon MAC Petition No. 19-AK/2 of 2013/2009, thereupon both are liable to be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The insurer has challenged the findings returned by the learned MACT-III, Solan, upon the issue appertaining to breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, on anvil, of infraction being visited vis-a-vis the mandatory statutory provisions borne in Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "39. Necessity for registration --No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has been suspended or cancelled and the vehicles carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government". The afore-extracted relevant provisions encapsulate a statutory embargo, against, the motor vehicle being driven in any public place or in any other place "unless" the vehicle is validly registered and the certificate of registration has not been suspended or cancelled. The learned counsel for the insurer, for deriving the fullest benefit(s) of the aforesaid statutory provisions, was, enjoined to adduce germane evidence, comprised in tendering(s) of the apposite registration certificate. However, the apposite registration certificate, with earmarking(s) existing therein, in respect of date of registration, of the offending vehicle, also with its concomitantly making marking(s) of, on the relevant day of the ill-fated occurrence involving the offending vehicle, its registration certificate, no longer surviving, evidently remained un-adduced into evidence. In aftermath, for want of adduction into evidence, of, the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, thereupon no benefit can be derived by the learned counsel for the insurer, from, the mandate of the afore-extracted statutory provisions. 2.1. In aftermath, for want of adduction into evidence, of, the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, thereupon no benefit can be derived by the learned counsel for the insurer, from, the mandate of the afore-extracted statutory provisions. 2.1. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Insurer, has, through an application cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, made, an effort to overcome the aforesaid defect (a) by his within the domain of the aforesaid statutory provisions, hence seeking leave of this Court, to adduce the aforesaid Registration Certificate into evidence; (b) also has prayed for remanding the matter to the learned MACT concerned, for its hence being enabled to receive evidence upon the issue appertaining to breach of terms of the insurance cover; (c) also thereupon it being enabled to return findings thereon. However, the application cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, warrants its dismissal, for the simple reason (i) that the mandate of the aforesaid provisions of CPC being available for recourse, only upon the relevant piece(s) of documentary evidence, evidently remaining never in the possession of the insurer, whereas, theirs subsequently coming into possession of the insurer; (ii) contrarily, the existence at page No. 116 of the record(s) of the learned MACT, of a memo of recovery prepared in respect of a photo copy of the apposite Registration Certificate, does obviously, constrain this Court to conclude (iii) that the counsel for the insurer derelicted, to, in accordance with law, prove its contents also he neglected in proving its valid execution by all signatory(s) thereof. Any want of valid proof of the aforesaid memo of recovery occurring at page No. 116 of the record of learned MACT concerned, memo whereof purportedly appertains to the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, cannot, be now permissibly overcome, through the instant application filed under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, emphatically when allowing the aforesaid application would defeat the salutary purpose behind the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC; (iv) also would un-tenably facilitate the derelicting counsel concerned, to despite his, not, proving in accordance with law, the relevant document, to hence, overcome the aforesaid defect, through, an application cast under the provisions of Oder 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sequel of the aforesaid inference, is that the initial absence of adduction into evidence of the Registration Certificate besides absence of production of original of memo prepared in respect of recovery of photocopy of Registration Certificate, and preponderantly want of valid proof thereof, hence constrains this Court to conclude that the Registration Certificate, not, appertaining vis-a-vis the offending vehicle. Corollary whereof is of an inference also being begotten of the apposite Registration Certificate being not in vogue nor surviving, at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated mishap. Consequently, the statutory interdiction''s, cast under the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against, the offending vehicle being driven at a public place, unless it holds a valid in force thereat, a registration certificate, being not invokable vis-a-vis the offending vehicle concerned, also, hence there being no prove breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance cover. Consequently, the findings returned by the learned MACT-III, Solan, upon the issue appertaining to the breach of the terms and conditions, are affirmed and maintained, whereas the application filed by the insurer for adducing additional evidence is dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants'', has contended that in consonance with the mandate of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, in case titled as "Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ," paragraph 24 whereof is extracted hereinafter: "In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100% in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruahthe income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." Significantly of the deceased, evidently at the relevant time, being a government employee, also his being aged about 48 years, thereupon the claimants'' being entitled to, in consonance therewith, to stake a hike of 30% in the salary drawn by the deceased, at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap. However, evidently the aforesaid mandate has not been complied with. Consequently, the effect of the deceased, at the relevant stage, evidently holding employment with the government, also his being at the relevant stage, evidently aged about 48 years, thereupon, in consonance with the here-in-above extracted relevant paragraph 24 of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (6) Supreme Court Cases, 121, a 30% hike in his income is to be accorded. Consequently, the income of the deceased comes to (Rs. 8230+ Rs. 2469) Rs. 10700/- per month. Since there are four claimants'' in the appeal preferred by the claimants'', thereupon, in tandem with the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the deduction(s) towards personal expenses of the deceased are taken as th hence the annual dependency(s) of the claimants" comes to Rs. 8025/- per month, whereas the per annum dependency(s) is computed at Rs. 8025x12=96,300/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years, thereupon a multiplier of 13 is applied, whereupon the total compensation amount is computed at Rs. 96,300x13=Rs. 12,51,900/-. 4. In view of the judgment reported in case titled as " Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation," SCC 2015(2) 764 , paragraphs 15 and 16 whereof are extracted hereinafter: "15. Further, the High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 20,000 each towards loss of love and affection to the minor children. Further, the High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 20,000 each towards loss of love and affection to the minor children. This amount awarded by the High Court is on the lower side in the light of the principle laid down in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh wherein the Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance to the minor children. Accordingly we award a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and towards loss of love and affection. 16. Apart from this, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of the life of the deceased. We also award a sum of Rs. 50,000 for funeral expenses and cost of litigation. Therefore, a total sum of Rs. 14,51,016 which is rounded off at Rs. 14,51,000 is awarded to the appellant claimants''." The claimants'' are also jointly awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of estate and consolidated amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased. Since the claimants'' No. 3 and 4 were minors at the time of death of the deceased, who was their father, the claimants'' No. 3 and 4, who are appellants in FAO No. 219 of 2017 are also held entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- each as compensation towards loss of love and affection, as mandated by the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case titled as, " Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others," (2013) 9 SCC 166 . The learned Tribunal below has aptly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1, who is appellant No. 1 in the appeal filed by the claimants'' being the wife of deceased and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In aftermath, the claimants'' are jointly held entitled to a sum of Rs. 8025x12x13=12,51,900/-+Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of estate + Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased. The aforesaid compensation amount shall be equally apportioned amongst all the claimants'', however, the minor appellants No. 3 and 4 are entitled to sum(s) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as compensation, towards loss of love and affection AND the widow of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased. The aforesaid compensation amount shall be equally apportioned amongst all the claimants'', however, the minor appellants No. 3 and 4 are entitled to sum(s) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as compensation, towards loss of love and affection AND the widow of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium. In addition, the compensation amount assessed towards funeral charges shall be exclusively apportioned vis-a-vis widow of the deceased. The sum(s) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each assessed as compensation, towards loss of love and affection shall also be apportioned exclusively vis-a-vis the minor claimants''. The interest borne on the compensation amount(s) aforesaid shall be @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution till its realization. FDRs in the name of the Registrar General of this Court, shall be prepared in respect of the compensation amount falling to the shares of the minor claimants", principal amount(s) whereof shall not be released vis-a-vis the mother and natural guardian of the minor appellants No. 3 and 4 "except" the interest accruing thereon. The interest accruing on the principal compensation amounts falling to the shares of minor claimants'', shall be disbursed, vis-a-vis their mother, only upon, evident display of, it, being required by their mother and natural guardian for their upkeep and maintenance. 5. In aftermath, the FAO No. 389 of 2015 is dismissed and FAO No. 219 of 2017 is allowed and the claimants'' are held entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 17,76,900/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition in the following terms: (i) Loss of estate (for all claimants) Rs. 1,00,000/- (consolidated equally amongst all claimants) (ii) Loss of expectation of the life of the deceased (for all claimants) Rs. 1,00,000/- (consolidated equally amongst all claimants) (iii) Compensation towards loss of love and affection (for minor appellant No. 3) Rs. 1,00,000/- (iv) Compensation towards love and affection (for minor appellant No. 4) Rs. 1,00,000/- (v) Loss of consortium (for wife) Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- (vii) Compensation on account of death of deceased Income per month-Rs. 10700/- Income per year after deducting personal and living expenses- 10700- =2675/- 10700-2675 = 8025x12=96,300/- Multiplier of 13 = 13x96,300= 12,51,900/- (to be apportioned equally amongst the claimants') (viii) Total 17,76,900/- 6. The apposite apportionment(s)/disbursement(s) shall occur in the aforesaid manner. 10700/- Income per year after deducting personal and living expenses- 10700- =2675/- 10700-2675 = 8025x12=96,300/- Multiplier of 13 = 13x96,300= 12,51,900/- (to be apportioned equally amongst the claimants') (viii) Total 17,76,900/- 6. The apposite apportionment(s)/disbursement(s) shall occur in the aforesaid manner. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.