JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. These three appeals and two cross objections directed against the common judgment and award dated 27th January 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC II and District Judge and MMACT-IV, Chikmagalur in three claim petitions. 2. The tabular representation of MFA numbers, MVC numbers, death/injury, result and compensation awarded and appeal by whom are as under: MFA/MFA CROB No. AND PREFERRED BY WHOM MVC DEATHOR INJURY RESULT AND COMPENSATION AWARDED MFA No. 2268/2009 Insurance Company MVC No. 660/2007 Death of Shanthi Allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,40 lakh CROB No. 178/2009 claimants -"- -"- -"- MFA No. 2267/2009 Insurance Company MVC No. 659/2007 Death of Neelamma Allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2.30 lakh CROB No. 177/2009 Claimants -"- -"- -"- MFA No. 2269/2009 Insurance Company MVC No. 607/2007 Death of Balaram Allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs.6.00 lakh 3. All the three claim petitions came to be allowed by the learned Member in part, granting the compensation as stated above together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent by filing execution petitions. 4. The brief facts of the case are: that on 8.9.2007 Shanthi, Neelamma and Balarama who are the victims in MVC Nos.659/2007, 660/2007 and 607/2007 were returning back in a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN.20.S.8685 after loading the potato at Doddabyadagere on Belur-Chikmagalur road near Bennur border. Balarama was the owner of the potato who also traveled in the cabin. Neelamma and Shanthi were also traveling as coolies in the lorry. The 1st respondent being the driver of the Lorry, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high velocity and at a turning point, lost control over the vehicle and capsized on the left side of the road. Because of which, three persons, namely,. Shanthi, Neelamma and Balarama sustained grievous injuries and died while shifting to the hospital. Due to the said causality, claimants being the dependants preferred claim petitions for compensation before the Tribunal. 5. The objections in substance by the Insurance Company is, the case pertains to one of gross violation of permit conditions. Because of which, three persons, namely,. Shanthi, Neelamma and Balarama sustained grievous injuries and died while shifting to the hospital. Due to the said causality, claimants being the dependants preferred claim petitions for compensation before the Tribunal. 5. The objections in substance by the Insurance Company is, the case pertains to one of gross violation of permit conditions. More particularly, the related final report filed by the police clarifies loud and clear that there was more than 16 persons traveling in the said lorry and a blatant violation of permit conditions that entails deprival of compensation or right of indemnity from the Insurance Company. 6. With the above pleadings and objections, learned Member considered the matter in all the three cases on the aspects of accident, negligence, sustaining of injuries, death of three persons, injuries to the persons who are cited as witness in the criminal case, the details of which are not available and entitlement of compensation. 7. The oral evidence that was available before the learned Member is the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and RW1 and also the documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P12 and Exs.R1 to R20. Learned Member considering oral evidence and materials available on record, allowed the claim petitions in part, granting compensation as stated above and directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent by filing execution petitions. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and award, the Insurance Company and the claimants have presented the appeals and cross objections seeking appropriate reliefs. 8. Learned counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, appearing for the Insurance Company in all the appeals questioned the validity of the judgment and award passed by the learned Member granting the relief to the claimants ignoring the violation of the permit conditions and directing the Insurer to satisfy the award amount and then recover the same from 2nd respondent and therefore, common judgment and award passed in these appeals are hit by violation of conditions of permit and are liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel Sri. 9. Learned counsel Sri. K.Govindaraj, appearing for claimants/cross objectors in MFA Nos.2268/2009 and 2267/2009 (MVC Nos.659 and 660/2007) would submit that the aim and object of the Act is social justice and it is identified as social legislation wherein whenever these kind of situation arises, the application of mind would be in the same manner as it is done by the learned Member who was right in granting the compensation to the claimants and with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and thereafter to recover from the owner of the vehicle. Needless to say that learned counsel Sri. Y.S.Murugendra, for claimant in MFA No.2269/2009 (MVC No.607/2007) would endorse the view of the learned counsel Sri. K. Govindaraj. 10. It is to be seen, in a case for claiming compensation any claimant for that matter should becomes the victim of the circumstances because of the effect of the accident. In some cases devastating effect of the accident and thrown to road would be hoping for compensation regardless of their position. Under such circumstances, it is in some cases demanded and it is made to demand the liability being saddled on the Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the learned Member has applied the discretion contrary to the reasoning assigned in respect of the liability of the Insurance Company as he reasoned that the Insurance Company was not liable to be saddled with liability, however, permitted it to recover the same in the execution petition and not by a separate suit. Needless to say further that Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure is an option. In the circumstances, before going to the entitlement or otherwise of the compensation, application of principles as to the understandability to application of mind by the learned Member, it is necessary to examine that the scope of permit covers the area of the route and the area on one hand and the purpose of travel on the other. 12. In the first segment, 'a route' or 'the area', would be allotted by the competent authority from one place to the place of destination in which event vehicle would have to travel on that route and cannot move in the area of jurisdiction of abandoning the route provided. 12. In the first segment, 'a route' or 'the area', would be allotted by the competent authority from one place to the place of destination in which event vehicle would have to travel on that route and cannot move in the area of jurisdiction of abandoning the route provided. Second one is, 'area permit', in which event vehicle would be entitled to ply in the definite area coming within a particular ambit of the routes. 13. In this connection, it is also necessary to make a cursory glance of Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein two types of permit implies. One regarding 'area' and another one regarding 'purpose'. Under these conditions, it is necessary to mention that the violation of permit is an offence punishable depending upon the gravity of the offence as the punishment is prescribed in the form of fine and also imprisonment with a minimum fine and imprisonment is provided for every subsequent offence. That invariably goes to show that violation of permit is a defined offence and when the police register a case for the offence in respect of the RTA, it is under Section 279 - rash and negligent, Section 337 -hurt, Section 338 -grievous hurt, Section 304A causing death by negligence. The other part of the offence in case of violation of permit would be 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. But incidentally that is not invoked in the present case. 14. However, learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 184 as well. Thus, it is necessary to mention the said offence also. Thus, Section 184 of M.V. Act is as under: "184. Driving dangerously. 14. However, learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 184 as well. Thus, it is necessary to mention the said offence also. Thus, Section 184 of M.V. Act is as under: "184. Driving dangerously. Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both." 15. It is further necessary to observe that the Criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender within the meaning of Section 109 and 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also necessary to mention herein that it was upon the cognizance was taken for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, Section 304A. But it was not challenged nor there is any material to show that an attempt was made to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 192-A as well. 16. The contents of Ex.R1 regarding the limitation as to use is worth to be mentioned as extracted below from the policy: " Limitation as to use: The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub- Section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The Policy does not cover use for (a) Organized Racing (b) Pace Making (c) Reliability Trials (d) Speed Testing." 17. The Policy does not cover use for (a) Organized Racing (b) Pace Making (c) Reliability Trials (d) Speed Testing." 17. Thus, insofar as the vehicle is concerned, permit also postulates the number of persons who are entitled to be the inmates in a travel by them in a particular vehicle which differs from one nature of the vehicle to the other such as a car into taxi, so on and so forth and the goods vehicle. In the context and circumstances, mis use of the permits are not allowed. In this connection, it is to be seen that three persons are reported dead. They are: Shanthi, Neelamma and Balaram because of which, the proceedings came to be started in MVC Nos. 660, 659 and 607 of 2007 respectively. 18. Further, it is also necessary to mention that FIR came to be registered in Crime No.207/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 194 of MV Act against the driver of the offending lorry and it was chargesheeted. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon the persons who were injured being listed in the final report as witnesses. 20. Thus, learned counsel for the insurance Company would further submit that all the witnesses were traveling in the said lorry. However, the said fact is contained in the chargesheet at the best coupled with 161 statement of witnesses. Regard being had to the fact that three persons are said to have traveled moreover, they are admittedly, Shanthi, Neelamma and Balaram. It is at this juncture, matter assumes importance regarding the seating capacity in the vehicle. In Ex.R3, copy of RC, it is stated as "three persons including driver". 21. Under the circumstances, it is not a case wherein lifo and fifo are to be considered. Process could be followed as to who entered the vehicle first and who followed him subsequently. It is in this connection, fastening of liability becomes a ticklish matter when there is allegation of violation of permitted capacity or carrying persons more than who are all permitted. Under these circumstances, it is to be seen, whether there is any other principles evolved to meet with the situation. 22. In this connection, I have perused the decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Under these circumstances, it is to be seen, whether there is any other principles evolved to meet with the situation. 22. In this connection, I have perused the decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. K.M. Poonam & Other., (2011) AIRSCW 2802 Their Lordships Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, in Civil Appeal Nos.24188, 24212, 24210, 24211, 24209, 24215, 24207 and 24213 of 2008, dealt with the matter under Motor Vehicles Act, in MVC No.59/1998 regarding the liability of Insurance Company/public transport vehicle traveling more than the permitted extent. The relevant para reads as under: "24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons traveling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle". 23. The objections raised by the Insurance Company in para 4 of the written statement contains that: "xxxx xxxxx As per the terms and conditions of Hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner muchless claimed in the claim petition". 24. 23. The objections raised by the Insurance Company in para 4 of the written statement contains that: "xxxx xxxxx As per the terms and conditions of Hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner muchless claimed in the claim petition". 24. Thus, the specific violation of permit is not the insurance policy issued by this respondent, the risk of unauthorized passengers is not covered. mentioned. 25. The learned member has framed the following issues and answered them as under: Issues in M.V.C.No.659/2007: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the Accident dated 8.9.2007 at about 10.00 p.m., occurred on Belur-Chikmagalur road near Bennur border, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.T.N.20/S.8685 by respondent No.1, due to which, the deceased Neelamma sustained injuries and later died in the hospital ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation if so what amount and from whom ? (3) What order or decree ? Issues in M.V.C. No.660/2007: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident dated 8.9.2007 at about 10.00 p.m., occurred on Belur-Chikmagalur road near Bennur border due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.T.N.20/S.8685 by respondent No.1, due to which, the deceased Shanthi sustained injuries and later died in the hospital ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation if so what amount and from whom ? (3) What order or decree ? Issues in M.V.C. No.607/2007: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident dated 8.9.2007 at about 10.00 p.m., occurred on Belur-Chikmagalur road near Bennur border due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.T.N.20/S.8685 by respondent No.1, due to which, the deceased Balarama sustained injuries and later died in the hospital ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation if so what amount and from whom ? (3) What order or decree ? The above issues in all the cases were answered as under: Issue No.1 Affirmative Issue No.2 Partly in the affirmative (a) Rs.2,30,000/- in MVC.659/07 (b) Rs.3,40,000/- in MVC.660/07 (c) Rs.6,00,000/- in MVC.607/07 From respondents 2 & 3 Issue No.3 As per final orders. 26. In the circumstances, the ratio laid down by their Lordship in the decision quoted above at para -3 at page No.11 is applicable to the present case. 27. Learned counsel Sri. 26. In the circumstances, the ratio laid down by their Lordship in the decision quoted above at para -3 at page No.11 is applicable to the present case. 27. Learned counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, appearing for Insurance Company would submit that the decision referred above applies exclusively for passenger vehicle and not for a goods vehicle. In this connection, this Court has to focus attention on the aspect that the Insurance Company has not raised objection regarding violation of permit of a goods vehicle. The aspect that requires to be further analyzed is that, number of persons entitled in a cabin of goods vehicle. In the circumstances, I am of the firm view that there is no irregularity or infirmity or illegality on the part of the learned Member in ordering for pay and recovery basis. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the direction issued by the learned Member to the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from 2nd respondent is maintained. 29. Regarding quantum of compensation: Insofar as compensation in MVC No.660/2007 MFA No.2268/2009 and MFA CROB 178/2009) is concerned, it pertains to the death of Shanthi, aged about 21 years. The claimants are the parents and minor daughter. The husband is not made as a party on the ground that he has deserted his wife and she was residing with her parents. The learned Member, considering her income at Rs.3,000/- per month, Rs.36,000/- per annum, deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses and applying 18 multiplier, awarded Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and other expenses and Rs.6,000/- towards transportation and Misc. expenses and in all Rs.3,40,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 30. Learned Member considered reasonable expected income of the victim Shanthi at Rs.3,000/- per month. But has erred in not considering the aspect of future prospects. The claimants are entitled to future prospects at 40% of her income. If 40% (Rs.1,200/-)is added to Rs.3,000/- towards future prospects, her total monthly income comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-). Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.1,400/-) is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased since there are three dependants, her net income comes to Rs.2,800/- per month. Applying multiplier of 18' as she was 21 years, loss of dependency would be Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18). To that, Rs.70,000/- has to be added towards conventional heads. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.1,400/-) is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased since there are three dependants, her net income comes to Rs.2,800/- per month. Applying multiplier of 18' as she was 21 years, loss of dependency would be Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18). To that, Rs.70,000/- has to be added towards conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.6,74,800/- and enhancement would be Rs.3,40,000/-. 31. Insofar as compensation awarded in MVC No.659/2007 (MFA No.2267/2009 and MFA CROB 659/2007) is concerned, it pertains to the death of Neelamma, aged about 50 years. The claimants are the major sons and daughter. They have not made their father as a party. The learned Member, considering her income at Rs.2,250/- per month, Rs.27,000/- per annum, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying 12 multiplier, awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and other expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation and Misc. expenses and in all Rs.2,30,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 32. Learned Member considered income of the victim Neelamma at Rs.2,250/- per month which is too low. Considering the fact that she was a coolie and maintaining the family, her income is considered at Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Member has erred in not considering the aspect of future prospects. The claimants are entitled to future prospects at 10% of her income. If 10% (Rs.300/-)is added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, her total monthly income comes to Rs.3,300/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.300/-). Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.1,100/-) is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, her net income comes to Rs.2,200/- per month and Rs.26,400/- per annum and if it is multiplied by 13' , loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,43,200/- (Rs.26,400/- x 13). To that, Rs.70,000/- has to be added towards conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,13,200/- and enhancement would be Rs.1,83,200/-. 33. Insofar as compensation awarded in MVC No.607/2007 (MFA No.2269/2009 is concerned, it pertains to the death of Balaram, aged about 30 years. The claimants are the wife, children and mother. To that, Rs.70,000/- has to be added towards conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,13,200/- and enhancement would be Rs.1,83,200/-. 33. Insofar as compensation awarded in MVC No.607/2007 (MFA No.2269/2009 is concerned, it pertains to the death of Balaram, aged about 30 years. The claimants are the wife, children and mother. The learned Member, considering her income at Rs.4,500/- per month, Rs.54,000/- per annum, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying 16 multiplier, awarded Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and other expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation and Misc. expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and in all Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 34. Learned Member is justified in considering the income of the victim at Rs.4,500/- per month. But erred in not considering the aspect of future prospects. The claimants are entitled to future prospects at 40% of his income. If 40% (Rs.1,800/-) is added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, his total monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.2,100/-) is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, his net income comes to Rs.4,200/- per month and Rs.50,400/- per annum and if it is multiplied by 17' , loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,56,800/- (Rs.50,400/- x 17). To that, Rs.70,000/- has to be added towards conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.9,26,800/- and enhancement would be Rs.3,26,800/-. 35. Claimants have resisted the appeal in respect of MVC Nos.659/2007 and 607/2007 and also filed cross objection seeking enhancement. However, respondents in MVC No.607/2007 has not filed separate appeal. Thus, quantum is not question. In this connection, the enhancement is made on the basis of doctrine of just compensation. The learned Member erred in not assessing the loss of dependency and towards conventional heads and they are rectified in tehse appeals. 36. For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.2268/2009, 2267/2009 and 2269/2009 are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants in MFA CROB Nos.178/2009 in MFA No.2268/2009 and 177/2009 in MFA No.2267/2009 are allowed in part. The compensation is ordered as follows: Case Nos. 36. For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.2268/2009, 2267/2009 and 2269/2009 are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants in MFA CROB Nos.178/2009 in MFA No.2268/2009 and 177/2009 in MFA No.2267/2009 are allowed in part. The compensation is ordered as follows: Case Nos. Result Enhancement MFA No. 2268/2009 MFA CROB No.178/2009 Dismissed Allowed in part NIL Rs.3,34,800/- MFA No. 2267/2009 MFA CROB No.177/2009 Dismissed Allowed in part NIL Rs.1,83,200/- MFA No.2269/2009 Dismissed However, compensation Rs.3,26,800/- is enhanced To the above extent, the common judgment and award is modified. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including the enhanced compensation in all the three appeals with interest at the same rate before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from the 2nd respondent in execution petition. The amount deposited in MFA Nos.2268/2009, 2267/2009 and 2269/2009 shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.