JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. These two appeals are disposed of by common judgment and award as they arise from common judgment and award dated 14.5.2009 passed by MAC Tribunal (MAIN) at Himmatnagar in MACP No. 328/2003 and MACP No. 415/2005. 2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.11.2002 deceased Dineshbhai I. Patel and injured Yashpal Makwana were riding motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-9-L.5032. Yashpalbhai who is the owner of the motorcycle was plying the motorcycle while deceased Dineshbhai was the pillion rider. The motorcycle, rammed into a tempo bearing registration No. GJ-1-UU-7860 from behind as the driver of the autorickshaw applied for sudden brakes. As a result Dineshbhai Patel fell from the motorcycle and suffered fatal injuries to which he succumbed while Yashpal suffered serious bodily injuries. 3. The legal heirs of deceased Dineshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel have filed MACP No. 328/2003 to recover Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation while Yashpalbhai Anilbhai Makwana had filed MAC Petition No. 415/2005 to recover Rs. 2000/- as compensation in the MAC Tribunal at Himmatnagar. The Tribunal has partly allowed these two claim petitions by impugned judgment and award. 4. The Insurance company of the motorcycle has preferred First Appeal No. 920/2011 to question its liability to pay the compensation to Yashpal Anilbhai Makwana on the ground that since he was the owner of the motorcycle and was driving it at the time of accident, cannot claim compensation from himself. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Dineshbhai I. Patel, have preferred Appeal No. 3069/2011 as they are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned advocate for National Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Shrikar H. Bhatt, and Ms. Archana Patel, learned advocate for Mr. J.V Japee, learned advocate for original claimants. 6. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No. 920/11 has vehemently urged that respondent No. 1 claimant cannot claim compensation from himself as he was the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 . He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 . He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 7. Mr. Shrikar Bhatt, learned for respondent No. 1-original claimant has supported this award. He submits that the Insurance companies has accepted the premium of own damage and also for the liability to the public and hence, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of compensation on the Insurance Companies. He, therefore urges that the impugned award does not warrant interference and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. So far as Appeal No. 3069/2011 is concerned Ms. Archana Patel, learned advocate for Mr. J.V Japee submits that the Tribunal has not considered that the prospective income of the deceased as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 . She further submits that looking to the number of dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 instead of 1/3 towards the expenses of the deceased. According to her submission the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. She further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal though loss to estate and loss of consortium also requires upward enhancement and the Tribunal has also awarded small amount for funeral expenses. She, therefore, urges that the compensation may be enhanced accordingly by allowing the appeal. 9. Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the Insurance company could not dispute the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal has not considered the prospective income in tune with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded consolidated a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses. According to his submission looking to the age of the deceased the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. He accordingly submits that appropriate order may be passed. 10. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded consolidated a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses. According to his submission looking to the age of the deceased the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. He accordingly submits that appropriate order may be passed. 10. Appeal No. 920/11 It is an undisputed fact that the offending motorcycle was of the ownership of respondent No. 1 herein and respondent No. 1 original claimant herein and deceased Dinesh I. Patel were riding the motorcycle when the accident happened. The deceased respondent No. 1 herein original claimant who was plying the motorcycle, in the background of this admitted fact the proposition of law expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) needs to be considered. 11. There is yet another facet. Section 149 of the M.V. Act deals with the duty of Insurance company to satisfy the judgment and award against the persons insured in respect of third party risks. The relevant provisions of section 149(1) is extracted below: "(1) If after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (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 sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) a [or under the provisions of section 163A] 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." 12. The bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it manifestly clear that the above said provisions are meant to take care of interest of the third party and the insured himself or herself cannot be said to be a third party. Indisputedly it was the respondent No. 1 original claimant who was the owner of the offending motorcycle who was himself plying the motorcycle when the accident had happened. He, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 149 of the M.V. Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma (supra) cannot claim compensation from himself as he cannot be said to be a third party. 13. The Tribunal has chosen award of compensation to respondent No. 1 by being influenced by the fact that the offending motorcycle was covered under the policy of insurance wherein insured with the appellant-insurance company has accepted premium for the liability of own damage. 14. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the respondent No. 1 seeking compensation under the policy issued by the virtue of 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act and if at all the personal risk of the driver and owner of the motorcycle is covered under the Insurance company, the proper form in my opinion is not claims Tribunal and the remedy lie before the same forum. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the claims petition instituted by respondent No. 1 against his own Insurance company was not maintainable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal qua the appellant in MACP No. 415/2005 needs interference in this appeal. 15. Appeal No. 3069/11 The Tribunal has not considered the prospective income as per the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Moreover the compensation awarded under the head, loss of consortium and loss of estate as also funeral expenses is also not in tune with the latest proposition laid down by this court and the Supreme Court. In my opinion as appellants are entitled to compensation as per the following details. 16. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7674/- which in my opinion is just and reasonable. In my opinion as appellants are entitled to compensation as per the following details. 16. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7674/- which in my opinion is just and reasonable. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, looking to the age of the deceased who was 29 years at the time of accident, 50% needs to be added to determine the prospective income which would come to Rs. 11,511/- There are five dependents and therefore, the deduction towards the personal expenses shall be 1/4 in place of 1/3 as deducted by the Tribunal and thereby the dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 8634/- multiplied by 12 = 1,03,608/- as annual dependency. 17. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18 but the correct multiplier would be 17 as per Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, 1,03,608 x 17 would come to Rs. 17,61,336/- of a further sum of Rs. 55,000/- required to be added towards the conventional amount and the funeral expenses as the accident had happened in 2002. Therefore the total compensation would come to Rs. 18,16,336/- in place of Rs. 10,09,560/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Ms. Archana Patel, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently urged that interest @ 9% in place of 7.5% may be awarded on the compensation all throughout looking to the decision of this Court and the Supreme Court. I am not inclined to accept this submission since considering the overall facts of the case, the Tribunal has in its discretionary powers awarded interest @ 7.5% which according to me is just and reasonable. 19. For the foregoing reasons the First Appeal No. 920/11 preferred by United Insurance company is hereby dismissed. 20. First Appeal No. 3069/11 preferred by the claimants is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MACP No. 328/2003 is hereby modified and the appellants are entitled to Rs. 18,16,336/- as compensation in place of Rs. 10,09,560/- The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 80,6776/- with 7%. Two months time is given to the Insurance company to deposit the compensation in the Tribunal. The appellants is directed to pay deficit court fees. 21. The parties shall bear their own costs. R & P shall be sent back to the trial court forthwith.