JUDGMENT Mr. Sudhir Mittal, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the claimants, who are thewidow, minor children and parents of the deceased-Parmod Kumar. Theyhad filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for claiming compensation on accountof death of Parmod Kumar in an accident, which took place on 12.02.2004.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as ‘theTribunal’) granted Rs. 50,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of theAct, under no fault liability alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from thedate of filing of claim petition till realization. The owner and the insurer ofthe offending vehicle were held liable to pay the compensation jointly andseverally. As mentioned earlier, the accident took place on 12.02.2004.Deceased-Parmod Kumar was driving a car bearing registration No.HR-31B-2555 and was returning from Delhi. At about 7.00 p.m., a carbearing registration No.HR-25F-2260 came from the opposite side and wasbeing driven rashly and negligently. It hit the car being driven by ParmodKumar which fell into the ditches. As a result of the accident, ParmodKumar received multiple injuries and died on the way to hospital. Later on,it transpired that the offending vehicle bore registration No.DL-6CH-6527and was a stolen vehicle. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar,Rohtak, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Regarding deceased-Parmod Kumar, it was stated in the claim petition that he was twenty fiveyears of age and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as a driver. Thus, claimof Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation was made. 2. Subhash Chand, S/o Sh. Gopal Chand (owner of the offendingvehicle) inter alia, pleaded that his car had been snatched at gun-point bysome un-known persons and that he had got an FIR registered at PoliceStation Kanjhawala, New Delhi, under Section 392 read with Section 34IPC. Respondent No.2-New India Assurance Company Limited (insurer ofthe offending vehicle) pleaded no liability on the ground that the car wasbeing driven by an unauthorized person resulting in violation of the terms ofthe certificate of insurance. 3. On examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunalreturned a finding of fact that the accident took place due to rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The income of thedeceased-Parmod Kumar was assessed as Rs. 2100/- per month beingminimum wages for an un-skilled labourer because no evidence wasproduced on the record regarding his income. 3. On examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunalreturned a finding of fact that the accident took place due to rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The income of thedeceased-Parmod Kumar was assessed as Rs. 2100/- per month beingminimum wages for an un-skilled labourer because no evidence wasproduced on the record regarding his income. The widow of Parmod Kumarappeared as PW-1 and stated that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- permonth, whereas in the claim petition his monthly income was stated to beRs. 5,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly incomeof the deceased in accordance with minimum wages being drawn by anun-skilled labourer. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd on account ofpersonal expenses and applied a multiplier of 16 by holding the age of thedeceased to be less than twenty five years based on Ex.P-3, his matriculationcertificate, which recorded the date of birth as 12.12.1981. The finding thatthe deceased-Parmod Kumar was less than twenty five years of age on thedate of the accident cannot be faulted. However, the deduction of 1/3rd forpersonal expenses is excessive. Admittedly, the deceased is survived by hiswidow, two minor children and aged parents. Thus, there are fivedependents of the deceased and therefore, a deduction of 1/4th only waspermissible as laid down by the larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi andOthers, [2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2970 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1565] : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017.Following the dictum of the said judgment, multiplier of 16applied by the Tribunal is also incorrect; it should have been 18 in view ofthe fact that the deceased was less than twenty five years of age. TheTribunal has also erred in not granting increase on account of futureprospects, which should have been 40%, in view of his age. 4. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled to compensation as follows: 1. Annual Income (1575x12) Rs. 18,900/- 2. Increase of 40% in income on account of future prospects (18,900+7,560) Rs. 26,460/- 3. Deduction of 1/4th on account of personal expenses (26,460-6,615) Rs. 19,845/- 4. Annual dependency applying multiplier of 18 as the deceased was twenty five years of age (19,845x18) 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 4,27,210/- 5. 26,460/- 3. Deduction of 1/4th on account of personal expenses (26,460-6,615) Rs. 19,845/- 4. Annual dependency applying multiplier of 18 as the deceased was twenty five years of age (19,845x18) 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 4,27,210/- 5. The learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled tocompensation of Rs. 50,000/- only, under no fault liability of the ground thatthe vehicle was stolen when the accident took place and the owner was nothaving domain over the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Thevehicle had been stolen eleven days before the accident and the theft hadbeen reported to the police. Under the circumstances, in the opinion of thelearned Tribunal, the owner was not liable to compensate any third-partyand therefore, his insurer viz., respondent No.2-New India AssuranceCompany Limited, would also not be bound to make any payment, as therewas no question of indemnification, if the owner was not liable to pay. Inmy opinion, this finding of the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in law. It isnow settled beyond shadow of doubt that the insurer can only escapeliability in the event of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance bythe insured. Where, a vehicle has been stolen, there is no question of anybreach leave alone willful breach of a condition of the terms of theInsurance. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot escape liability on the saidground and the insurance company being in the business of insurance isbound to indemnify a third-party, who has died or suffered injuries onaccount of the accident. Section 149(1) of the Act imposes a statutory dutyupon an insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against the insuredperson in respect of third-party risks. The insurer can only escape liability,if there has been a willful breach of the conditions of the policy and I havealready held that there can be no question of breach of terms of a policy,where a vehicle has been stolen. My view is supported by a judgment ofHon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance CompanyLimited Vs. Lehru and Others, 2003(3) SCC 338 , wherein afterexamining the issue of liability of an insurance company in a case relating tofake driving licence. It has been held as follows:- “18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance hasbeen placed on Section 149(2)(a)(ii). Lehru and Others, 2003(3) SCC 338 , wherein afterexamining the issue of liability of an insurance company in a case relating tofake driving licence. It has been held as follows:- “18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance hasbeen placed on Section 149(2)(a)(ii). As seen in order to avoidliability under this provision it must be shown that there is a’’breach”. As held in Skandia’s and Sohan Lal Passi’s cases(supra) the breach must be on part of the insured. We are in fullagreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurdresults. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen.Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. Thethief is caught and it is ascertained that he had not licence. Canthe Insurance Company disown liability? The answer has to bean emphatic “No”. To hold otherwise would be to negate thevery purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relativesof person killed in the accident may find that the decreeobtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a manof straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It isfor this reason that the Legislature, in its wisdom has madeinsurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aimand purpose being that an Insurance Company would beavailable to pay. The business of the Company is to insurance.In all businesses there is an element of risk. All personscarrying on business must take risks associated with thatbusiness. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run formaking profits also bears the risk associated with it. At thesame time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss.These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus inagreement with what is laid down in aforementioned cases viz.that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that theperson driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed.The Insurance Company must establish that the breach was onthe part of the insured.” 6. A single Bench judgment of this Court in National InsuranceCompany Limited Vs. Rohit Sharma, 2013(20) RCR (Civil) 40,hasalso taken the same view and I respectfully agree with it. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. A single Bench judgment of this Court in National InsuranceCompany Limited Vs. Rohit Sharma, 2013(20) RCR (Civil) 40,hasalso taken the same view and I respectfully agree with it. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. RespondentNo.2-New India Assurance Company Limited, is held liable to pay thecompensation as assessed, to the claimants-appellants, within a period ofthree months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgmentalongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of the claim petition tillthe date of payment. No costs.