JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal in MFA No.1047/2013 by the owner of the offending vehicle and the appeal in MFA No.1198/2014 by the claimants lay a challenge to the judgment and award dated 07.12.2012 made by the MACT, Chickmagaluru, allowing MVC No. 597/2010 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- with 6% annual interest thereon has been awarded. The owner contends that the respondent-insurer ought to have been made liable. The claimants contend that the higher compensation ought to have been awarded. 2. In the vehicular accident that happened on 22.11.2006 at involving the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.KA-18-T2842 & 2843, one Mr. Vishwanatha fell down from the top of the loaded trailer and sustained fatal injuries and later, he succumbed to the same. The LRs of the deceased preferred a claim petition in MVC No.597/2010 that was stoutly opposed by the appellant owner of the vehicle and the respondent-insurer by filing separate Written Statements. 2A. To prove the claim, the first claimant Smt. Leela was examined as PW1. In her evidence, 7 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P7. These documents comprised of the charge sheet and the Post Mortem Report, amongst others. The respondent-insurer had examined its official Mr. Naveen as RW1. The owner of the offending vehicle Mr. Sunil D’Sa the appellant herein was examined as RW2. In their evidence, 6 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits as per R1 to R6. Looking to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the MACT has made the impugned judgment and award. 3. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that he had paid additional premium of Rs.25/- covering the insurance of the employees which has been admitted in the cross-examination of insurer’s witness RW1 and therefore, the MACT ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent-insurer. The learned counsel for the claimants apart from seeking fastening the liability on the insurer contends that the compensation awarded is too much on the lower side; the additions in view of Apex Court judgment in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others” in AIR 2017 SC 5157 (Pranay Sethi Case). and “Hemraj v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Case)” are required to be made to the income of the deceased and therefore, in any circumstance compensation has to be enhanced. and “Hemraj v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Case)” are required to be made to the income of the deceased and therefore, in any circumstance compensation has to be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer per contra submits that there was no relationship of employer-employee ; the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle fraudulently supported the case of the claimants before the MACT by amending the Written Statement; the additional premium of Rs.25/- was paid for enlarging the coverage of the driver himself and not other employees; the accident happened in a private coffee estate and not in public place and lastly, the tractor-trailer is not a good transport vehicle. He also opposes the claim for enhancement of compensation. So stating, the counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle/employer and learned counsel for the claimants. I have also heard the learned counsel for the insurer. 6. It is the contention of the appellant/owner of the vehicle/employer that the deceased was in his employment and that he had paid additional premium of Rs.25/- for covering the insurance of one employee and therefore the insurer is liable, gains acceptance since RW1 examined on behalf of the insurer has specifically admitted the payment of additional premium for covering one workman/employee of the insured. The contention of the insurer that this additional premium was received only for enlarging the liability in respect of the driver appears to be too farfetched in as much as driver has the statutory coverage and therefore, is not convincing. 7. The learned counsel for the insurer next contends that the employer/owner of the vehicle who had at the earliest point of time, had denied employer-employee relationship between himself and the deceased in the Written Statement had added para 7A by way of amendment of pleadings and therefore, this amounts to a fraudulent proceeding designed to pass on the liability on the insurer. Consequently, he submits, the insurer cannot be made liable. The ground of fraud or collusive proceeding can be urged only if articulated pleadings are filed and the cogent evidence in support of such ground is placed on record. That being not the position, the contention does not merit acceptance. 8. Consequently, he submits, the insurer cannot be made liable. The ground of fraud or collusive proceeding can be urged only if articulated pleadings are filed and the cogent evidence in support of such ground is placed on record. That being not the position, the contention does not merit acceptance. 8. The learned counsel for the insurer next contends that the accident in question admittedly happened in the private estate of the appellant/employer/owner of the offending vehicle and not in a public place and that in such situation the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 is not at all applicable and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurer. The learned counsel taking the Court through various provisions of the Act and the Rules, strenuously tried to substantiate the tenability of his contention. However, he could not cite one sporadic decision in support of this particular contention. 9. In a more or less identical situation the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of “Pandurang Chimaji Agale v. New India Insurance Company Ltd.,” (1988 ACJ 674) has held that the term “Public Place” defined under Section (24) of the Act is very wide and if the public have a permissive access to a private place, that too becomes a “pubic place”. The same view is expressed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathi Devi” (1999 ACJ 1520). A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court too in the case of Hira bai and others v. Pratap Singh and another 2008 ACJ 2660 has taken the same line of reasoning. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.2244/2007 decided on 09.09.2010 has also taken the same view. Thus, the precedents are heavily loaded against the insurer. Nothing is pointed out as to why this Court too tread the same path. Therefore, this contention fails. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the insurer submits that neither the tractor nor the trailer is a goods transport vehicle going by their definitions in the Act and therefore, the insurer cannot be made liable under the terms of contract of insurance. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of “National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Sri. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the insurer submits that neither the tractor nor the trailer is a goods transport vehicle going by their definitions in the Act and therefore, the insurer cannot be made liable under the terms of contract of insurance. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of “National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Sri. Maruthi and others” (ILR 2011 KAR 4139) has already held that the combination of tractor-trailer is nothing short of a goods carriage and that the insurer cannot escape the liability in such situation. Even otherwise also the insurer is liable under the newly evolved principle of ‘pay and recover’. Thus, this contention too does not yield anything to the insurer. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident occurred in the year 2006, the deceased was in the age group of 21 to 25; the MACT has taken ‘18’ as the appropriate multiplier ; however, the monthly wage of the deceased is taken at Rs.4,000/- when he was earning more than Rs.6,000/-p.m. The contention of the claimant finds support from the Notional Income Chart of the Lok Adalath as well. Therefore, the monthly income value is altered from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that to the notional value is to be added 40% in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and also of Hem Raj too is well founded. Therefore, the notional monthly wage value works out to be Rs.4,200/- [6000-3000 (since deceased was bachelor, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses) and if 40% is added to the remaining Rs.3,000/-, it comes to Rs.4,200/-]. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded under the head, ‘Loss of Dependency’ in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi followed by Hem Raj works out to 4200x18x12 = 09,07,200/-. 13. For all the reasons stated about the both the appeals are allowed; the impugned judgment and award are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,57,000/- to Rs.09,07,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.; the ratio of apportionment of compensation prescribed by the MACT is left unaltered. 14. The respondent-insurer is liable to pay the compensation with interest under this judgment. 14. The respondent-insurer is liable to pay the compensation with interest under this judgment. No opinion is expressed on the invocability of the principle of ‘pay and recover’ and the contention as to the same is kept open.