JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The correctness of judgment and awards dated 3.12.2011 in MACApp No.30/2011 has been challenged by the Insurance Company in MACApp No.98/2012. The claimants have also filed MACApp No.92/2013 for enhancement of the award. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.07.2010, the son of the claimant, Budhadeb Roy (since deceased) was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-16/A 6777. The vehicle met with an accident and as a result, said Budhadeb Roy sustained multiple injuries. He died on 12.1.2011, due to the injuries sustained out of the accident. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by its owner Sib Prasad Ghose. On the death of Budhadeb Roy, his parents filed a claim petition before the MACT. 3. The MACT Kokrajhar made an award of Rs.3,58,754/- which included Rs.38874/- towards the cost of treatment, Rs.5,000/- for transportation cost and incidental expenditure during treatment, Rs.2,99,880/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expense and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection etc. 4. The Insurance Company challenged the award on the ground that on the date of accident, the deceased was driving the vehicle and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation, as the accident occurred for his own fault. Further contention of the Insurance Company is that the owner of the vehicle misrepresented and concealed the facts and thereby committed fraud, inasmuch as, initially the owner informed the Insurance Company by writing a letter that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by the deceased, whereas, while filing written statement, the owner has changed his stand and stated that he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 5. There is however, no denial of facts that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company referring to a letter annexed with the memo of appeal as well as copy of the GD entry, submits that at the time of accident, the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation in the present claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the owner having committed fraud with the Insurance Company, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the owner having committed fraud with the Insurance Company, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Owner of the vehicle, the opposite party No.3 filed written statement before the tribunal, admitting that on the date of accident he was driving the vehicle and the deceased being his friend was travelling in the vehicle as occupant. Pw-1 and Pw-2 were not eye witness of the occurrence. However, the claimant has examined Pw-3, one Ashok Kr. Roy, who was an eye witness of the occurrence. Pw-3 stated that deceased Budhadeb Roy sustained injury in the accident on 17.07.2010 and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Kokrajhar hospital. The medical evidence, as well as the post-mortem report, where, cause of death has been shown as septic shock, clearly indicated that the death of the deceased was because of the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident. Indeed, the death of the victim because of the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The only question raised by the Insurance Company in the present case is that the owner of the vehicle committed fraud with the Insurance Company by taking two different stands. 7. Oral evidence adduced by the claimant side coupled with the documentary evidence, Exhibit-2, the Accident Information Report, and the FIR clearly demonstrates that the vehicle was driven by the owner Sib Prasad Ghosh at the relevant time. There was neither any pleading, nor any evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to the effect, that deceased was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Two documents being the alleged letter written by the owner of the vehicle after the accident and the GD entry annexed with the memo of appeal, on which the learned counsel for the Insurance Company heavily relied, shows that the said letter was received by the Insurance Company even before filing of the written statement by Insurance Company. Although, admittedly, the letter allegedly written by the owner and the GD entry were with the Insurance Company during the proceeding before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is not found to have made any whisper during the entire proceeding before the tribunal about the existence of these two documents. Although, admittedly, the letter allegedly written by the owner and the GD entry were with the Insurance Company during the proceeding before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is not found to have made any whisper during the entire proceeding before the tribunal about the existence of these two documents. When the owner of the vehicle himself appearing in the proceeding admitted that he was driving the vehicle and such plea was never challenged by the Insurance Company during the proceeding before the tribunal, the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise such plea in appeal. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, that the claimant will not be entitled to compensation for, alleged fraud committed by the owner of the vehicle with the insurer, which was never pleaded of proved before the tribunal. Even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that the owner of the vehicle committed some fraud with the Insurance Company, that would not anyway affect the right of the claimant to get compensation, when death of the deceased in the accident involving the offending vehicle is not disputed. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is found without merit and stands dismissed. 9. In MACApp No.92/2013, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the award. The learned counsel for the claimant referring to the award submits that the tribunal wrongly deducted 2/3rd of the income for personal expense of the deceased while assessing the loss of dependency. Further contention of the learned counsel is that Tribunal applied multiplier with referance to the age of the claimant, which ought to have been with reference to the age of the deceased. It is now settled position, as held by the Apex Court and also division bench of this Court in MACApp No.128/2016 Unis Ali Vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., that in a death case, multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. 10. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. It is now settled position, as held by the Apex Court and also division bench of this Court in MACApp No.128/2016 Unis Ali Vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., that in a death case, multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. 10. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC, Apex Court held that when the claim petition is filed by the unmarried son, usually the deduction for personal expense is to be made 50% of the income, but if evidence is brought on record to show that there were more dependents on the income of the deceased, such deduction for personal expense can also be less than 1/2nd. Thus considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma case, I am of the view that deduction in the instant case for personal expense should have been 50% of the income and not 2/3rd of his income as deducted by the learned tribunal. 11. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the tribunal ought to have granted minimum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expense, whereas, the tribunal has granted only a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expense and in my view the claimant is entitled to enhancement of award on account of funeral expense at least to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. The amount awarded by the tribunal on account of love and affection also appears to be extremely meager and the claimant deserves enhancement on this count too. Thus, enhanced compensation which the claimant is entitled to, as just and reasonable compensation in the instant case is assessed as under: Loss of dependency Rs.5000 × 12 × 18 = Rs.540000 Medical expense including incidental expenditure = Rs.43874 Funeral expense = Rs.25000 Loss of love and affection = Rs.50000 TOTAL : = Rs.658874 12. As the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company, the above award Rs.6,58,874/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the tribunal within 2 (two) months. 13. As the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company, the above award Rs.6,58,874/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the tribunal within 2 (two) months. 13. Upon depositing the amount by the Insurance Company, the tribunal shall release Rs.2,00,000 immediately in favour of the claimants by account payee cheque and rest of the awarded amount with interest shall be fixed deposited in a nationalized bank equally in the name of the two claimants for a period of 6 (six) months. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement is allowed. 14. Send back the LCR.