JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Chatra, in Claim Case No.6/2005, whereby appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the awarded compensation of Rs.1,58,500/- with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application along with cost of the suit. 2. Brief facts of the case is that deceased Lalu Yadav was travelling on the roof-top of the bus bearing registration no. BEM 4093 and he was electrocuted by the dangling electric wire while travelling atop the roof of the bus. Accordingly Hunterganj P.S.U.D Case No.3/95 was registered under section 278 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer while impugning the judgment/award has argued that admittedly the deceased was travelling on the roof-top of the bus. That in terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he was not a bona fide passenger and there has been breach of terms and conditions of the policy hence the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened upon the owner of the bus and not on the appellant-insurer. It is argued that the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, whereas it is settled principle that in case of a bachelor 50% of the income should be deducted towards personal expenses while assessing the loss of dependency. It is submitted that since there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant/insurer should be given the right to proceed against the insured/owner for recovery of the awarded compensation. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent-claimants has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. Parwati Devi & Ors. [ 2005 (3) J.L.J.R 24 ], the judgment/award does not require any interference. It is submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income on the basis of notional income at Rs.1500/- p.m. whereas witnesses have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.7080/- per day. That in fact, the Tribunal should have assessed the income at Rs.2000/- per month considering the fact that the deceased was a rickshaw puller/a labourer. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-owner has also relied on the decision in the case of Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. That in fact, the Tribunal should have assessed the income at Rs.2000/- per month considering the fact that the deceased was a rickshaw puller/a labourer. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-owner has also relied on the decision in the case of Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. Parwati Devi & Ors. (supra) and submitted that the bus was validly insured with the appellant-insurer and the liability to pay compensation is upon the appellant-insurer. 6. Heard. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the material evidence, it is evident from the deposition of the witnesses as discussed by the Tribunal that the conductor had asked the deceased to go to the roof-top of the bus, as the bus was packed with passengers accordingly the deceased was travelling atop the roof of the bus. The bus had stopped at Bora More. The deceased came in contact with the loosely hanging electric wire over the road and died due to electrocution which is corroborated by the postmortem report. 7. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses the Tribunal has recorded the findings that the driver and bus-staff had acted in a negligent manner by asking and allowing the deceased to travel atop the roof of the bus. The driver had stopped the bus at a place where the electric wire was hanging and non-submission of charge sheet against the driver by the police is not a ground for absolving the driver and staff of the bus of the negligent act by asking the deceased to travel on the roof top of the bus. 8. Admittedly the death of the deceased due to electrocution has a nexus with the negligent act of the staff of the bus. In the case of Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. Parwati Devi & Ors. (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-claimants and owner, it has been held that section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that the vehicles used in public places should ply under a valid insurance policy covering third party risk. Section 147 of the Act deals with requirements of the policy and limits of liability. Incorporation of section 147 under the Act of 1988 has brought drastic change regarding extent of the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the injured victims or the dependents of the deceased who died on account of motor accident. Section 147 of the Act deals with requirements of the policy and limits of liability. Incorporation of section 147 under the Act of 1988 has brought drastic change regarding extent of the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the injured victims or the dependents of the deceased who died on account of motor accident. The provision of section 149 of the Act has been elaborately discussed on the basis of well settled principle that statutory liability to pay compensation to a third party is independent of the contractual rights and obligation under section 149, between the insurer and the insured and nondisclosure or concealment of material facts by the insured at the time of obtaining policy or any contravention of the condition of the policy could have no effect on the statutory rights of the third party to claim compensation from the insurance company. The insurance company can avoid its liability only in terms as provided under subsection (2) of section 149 of the Act, which reads as under: “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. – (1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under subsection (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely : (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely : (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without sidecar being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) xxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxx (6) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (7) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 149 and the exposited facts and the material evidence on record, it is explicit that the liability to pay compensation has rightly been fixed upon the insurer. It is settled principle that in a case of breach of the terms of the contract, the insurer has a right to proceed against the insured and condition of such contractual obligation cannot override the liability to compensate a third party. It is settled principle that in a case of breach of the terms of the contract, the insurer has a right to proceed against the insured and condition of such contractual obligation cannot override the liability to compensate a third party. 9. The deceased was a rickshaw puller but the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of notional income of Rs.1500/- p.m which is not just and fair. In fact, the Tribunal should have considered the statement of the witnesses and assessed the monthly income at Rs.2000/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at (Rs.2000 x 12) = Rs.24,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor, hence 50% of the income is deducted towards personal expenses hence the annual loss of dependency is computed at Rs.12,000/-. The deceased was aged 25 years thus multiplier of 17 is applicable hence loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.12,000 x 17 =Rs.2,04,000/- less Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation = Rs.1,54,000/-. It is evident that a meager amount of Rs.2000/- and Rs.2500/- respectively has been awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, moreover no amount has been awarded for non-pecuniary damages with regard to loss of love and affection. In the attending facts and circumstances, it will be just, fair and reasonable to award a lump sum Rs.1,00,000/- under the aforesaid heads. Accordingly the appellant-insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,54,000 + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,54,000/- with interest @ 8% as directed by the court below from the date of filing of the claim application within three months from the date of this order. 10. Liberty is reserved with the appellant-insurer to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the amount before the competent forum by adducing evidence regarding breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. 11. Registry is directed to return the deposited statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant-Insurance Company. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent as stated above and the appeal stands dismissed.