JUDGMENT : P G M Patil, J. The insurer-Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company and the claimants being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 24.6.2015, passed in MVC Nos.303/2013 and 304/2013 by the MACT XII, Ballari, have filed these appeals. 2. It is the case of claimants before the Tribunal that on 9/8/2012 at about 1.30 a.m., the deceased Mahesh and Nagaraj were traveling in Ashok Leyland Milk Tanker bearing registrtion No.KA.05/C.9753 and when the said vehicle was proceeding near KEB Gate, Somanahalli, Kanakapura road in Bangalore south taluka, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the deceased Mahesh sustained grievous injury and died on the spot and one Nagaraj sustained grievous injuries. The legal representative of the deceased have filed MVC No.303/2013 contending that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged about 25 years and was working as Supervisor in Bangalore Dairy and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., and contributing towards maintenance of the family. Due to untimely death of the deceased, his family members have suffered mentally physically and financially. Therefore, they claimed compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The injured- H.Nagaraj is petitioner in MVC 304/2013 and the claimants in MVC No.303/13 claimed compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. Both the claim petitions were heard together by recording common evidence and disposed of by common judgment. 3. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent, they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed objections. Respondent No.3 contended that the petitions are not maintainable in law and on facts. He has admitted the accident and death of the deceased. But, they have taken a specific contention that the petitioners have to prove that the death of the deceased Mahesh and the injuries caused to petitioner in MVC No.304/2013 was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Moreover, there is breach of policy condition as the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues in both the cases. 5. Moreover, there is breach of policy condition as the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues in both the cases. 5. In support of their claim petitions, claimant No.1 in MVC No.303/2013 got examined as PW-1 and claimant in MVC No.304/2013 was examined as PW-2 and got marked in all 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P.10. Respondent No.3 examined his official witness as RW-1 and got 3 documents as Ex.R1 to R3. 6. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.4,81,936/- in MVC No.303/2013 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- in MVC No.304/2013 with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date deposit. Respondent No.3 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation in both the cases. 7. Insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment so far as the award passed in MVC No.303/2013 has filed MFA No.102680/2015 on the ground that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation for the death of the alleged employee working in the milk dairy at Bangalore. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the admitted documents and requires to be set aside. The tribunal has committed an error in not considering the fact that neither the policy-Ex.R1 nor Section 147 of the M.V. Act contemplates coverage to the risk of unauthroised passenger in the goods vehicle. Hence, the liability fastened against the insurer is liable to be set aside. 8. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment in respect of MVC No.304/2013 has filed MFA No.102681/2015 on the same grounds as stated above. 9. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award have filed MFA No.102911/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,150/- which is on the lower side and 50% of the income towards future prospect has not been considered and that the multiplier 18' should have been applied instead of 11'. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. A short question which arise for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellant-insurer has made out grounds for setting aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation?" 12. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer, vehemently submitted that the deceased was traveling in the milk tanker which is goods vehicle as unauthorised passenger, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner who has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased and claimant in MVC No.304/2013 were not traveling in the milk tanker in the course of their employment as employees of the Bangalore Dairy. The learned counsel referred to the contents of the complaint and petition averments. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was not a workman within the definition provided under Section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the risk of the deceased is not covered under the policy, but the risk of loader and unloader or helper is covered under the policy. However, the deceased was not traveling in the milk tanker in either of the said capacity. The learned counsel has relied on two decisions in support of his arguments. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was on duty as a supervisor in the tanker and the claimant in MVC No.304/2013 was on duty as a helper and that Exs.P6 and P7-salary certificates of the deceased Mahesh and PW-2 are sufficient to hold that they are the employees of Bangalore dairy. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced by applying multiplier 18' and by making addition of 40% of the income towards future prospects. 14. The only contention raised by the appellant-insurer in these appeals is that the deceased was traveling in the milk tanker which is a goods vehicle as unauthorised passenger, and therefore, the risk of the deceased is not covered under the policy-Ex.R1. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Gulbarga and Others Vs. Hanumanthappa and Other, (2006) ILR(Kar) 1498. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Gulbarga and Others Vs. Hanumanthappa and Other, (2006) ILR(Kar) 1498. This Court in the similar circumstances, considered the meaning of the definition 'workman' under W.C. Act under Section 2(n) which is similar to Section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Employees' Compensation Act. This Court has observed in para Nos. 3 and 4 as fol lows:- "3. The facts and evidence disclose that the inmates of the tractor-trailer were the employees of R.2 but not employed in connection with the motor vehicle. The provision of Section 147 of the MV Act insists compulsory coverage of insurance for the employees under the W.C.Act. 4. The relevant provision of Section 2(n) of the W.C.Act defines the workman as follows:- "2(n) "Workman" means any persons who is (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with motor vehicle" The relevant proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act reads as follows:- 147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability:- Provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of death arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employees of a person insured by the Policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising of under the workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee- There is no statutory liability on the part of the insurer to cover the risk of all types of employees of the insured owning a motor vehicle. Only such of those employees within the meaning of "workman" under the W.C.Act have to be compulsorily covered by the insurance. The employees who are employed in connection with the motor vehicle as defined U/S 2(n) have been benefit of statutory coverage." 15. Therefore, it is held that there is no statutory liability on the part of the insurer to cover the risk of all type of employees of insured owning a motor vehicle and that the risk of such employee within the meaning of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, have to be compulsorily covered by the insurance. 16. Therefore, it is held that there is no statutory liability on the part of the insurer to cover the risk of all type of employees of insured owning a motor vehicle and that the risk of such employee within the meaning of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, have to be compulsorily covered by the insurance. 16. In the present case, though it is contended by the claimants that the deceased was an employee of the Bangalore dairy as a supervisor at the relevant time, he was not travel ing in the milk tanker in the course of his employment, and therefore, he cannot be held as workman under the W.C. Act and under Section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Employees' Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has also relied on a judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others reported in SCW 3591. In support of his arguments, FIR and other documents produced in the case have to be considered by the Court/Tribunal in order to fix the liability of the driver of the offending vehicle. This principle is not disputed. 17. In the present case, the contents of Exs.P1-FIR and P2- the complaint goes to show that on the date of accident, the deceased and PW-2 met the driver of the lorry, namely, tanker and he called them to accompany him to Kanakupura, where he is going to bring the load of the milk. Therefore, the deceased and PW-2 boarded the said tanker and while returning, the tanker met with an accident. Absolutely, there is no mention in the complaint and the claim petition that the deceased boarded the tanker as a supervisor on duty and PW-2 as a helper on duty. There is no mention in the complaint or the claim petition as to what they did after accompanying the driver in the milk tanker. Absolutely, there is no evidence that the deceased discharged his duty as supervisor and PW-2 discharged his duty as helper either in loading the milk or taking account of the milk loaded in the tanker. Therefore, the deceased and PW-2 cannot be held that they were traveling in the tanker as workmen within the definition stated supra. 18. Absolutely, there is no evidence that the deceased discharged his duty as supervisor and PW-2 discharged his duty as helper either in loading the milk or taking account of the milk loaded in the tanker. Therefore, the deceased and PW-2 cannot be held that they were traveling in the tanker as workmen within the definition stated supra. 18. Further, it is necessary to observe that it is the case of the claimants and PW-2 that they were working in the Bangalore dairy, and therefore, they were traveling in the said tanker as employees of Bangalore dairy. Ex.P6 is the salary certificate in respect of the deceased Mahesh and Ex.P7 is the salary certificate of PW-2-H.Nagaraj. In both these certificates, Eshwara Enterprises, the labour contractor has stated that the said Mahesh and H.Nagaraja were working in Bangalore Dairy under Kishore Enterprises Labour Contractor in Lab Section from 2nd May 2011 to 6th August 2012. The accident in question occurred on 9/8/2012. Therefore, even as per these service certificates, as on the date of accident, the deceased and PW-2 were not workman working in Bangalore Dairy. Exs.P6 and P7 goes to show that both the deceased and PW-2 worked in Bangalore Dairy in Lab Section up to 6/8/2012. There is no material to show that even after 6/8/2012, they were continued in service in Bangalore Dairy. Therefore, the contention of the claimants that the deceased was traveling in the milk tanker as employee of Bangalore Dairy in the capacity as a supervisor cannot be accepted. Even in Ex.P6, it is stated that the deceased Mahesh was working in the Lab Section of Dairy and not as supervisor in the tanker for loading the milk. Under these circumstance, it is crystal clear that the deceased was traveling in the milk tanker as unauthorized passenger and not as workman of Bangalore Dairy as contended by the claimants. 19. Consequently, it has to be held that the risk of the unauthorized passenger is not covered under the insurance policy produced at Ex.R1. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside and insurer has to be exonerated from the said liability. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the insurer deserve to be allowed and the liability to pay the compensation has to be saddled against the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the insurer deserve to be allowed and the liability to pay the compensation has to be saddled against the owner of the offending vehicle. 20. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted for enhancement of compensation by applying the multiplier 18' and making addition of 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as at Rs.5,102/- in view of Ex.P6- salary certificate which is proper. Further, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 11' by taking the age of the mother of the deceased as 55 years. Now, it is settled point of law that the age of the deceased has to be taken for choosing the multiplier as stated in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others case. Therefore, proper multiplier applicable in the case is 18'. The claimants are also entitled for addition of 40% of the income towards future prospects in view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157. The income of the deceased being Rs.5,102/- p.m., addition of 40% towards future prospects comes to Rs.2,040/-. The total income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,442/- out of this 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased who was a bachelor. The said amount comes to Rs.3,721/- and the remaining amount comes to Rs.3,721/- which has to be multiplied by 12' and again by 18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency of Rs.8,03,736/- (3721X12X18). The claimant Nos.1 and 2 being parents of the deceased are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others case. Therefore, Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards parental consortium. Further, sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under conventional heads. Therefore, claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,13,736/- as against compensation of Rs.4,81,936/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER MFA No.102680/2016 and MFA No.102681/2015 are allowed. The common judgment dated 24/6/2015 passed in MVC Nos.303 and 304/2013 by the Member MACT, XII, Ballari, so far as saddl ing the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER MFA No.102680/2016 and MFA No.102681/2015 are allowed. The common judgment dated 24/6/2015 passed in MVC Nos.303 and 304/2013 by the Member MACT, XII, Ballari, so far as saddl ing the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2-the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to pay the compensation awarded in both the cases. MFA No.102911/2015 is allowed in part. The appellants-claimants are awarded a compensation of Rs.9,13,736/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurer in MFA Nos.102680/2015 and 102681/2015 shall be refunded to it. Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks.