JUDGMENT : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the claimants assailing the correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 19.6.2013 passed in MVC.3886/2011 by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru. 3. The claim petition was filed by the dependants of deceased M.R.Srinath contending that on 16.3.2011 at about 7.15 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding in the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA538450 owned by the first respondent, the driver of the said autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the autorickshaw toppled towards right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-H-1467 as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Hence, claim petition was filed contending that the deceased was working as a Supervisor in WFD India Private Limited and was drawing a salary of Rs.9,500/- per month and was also earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from cultivation. The appellants in support of their contention led in oral evidence and produced documents to corroborate the same as Exs.P1 to P11. The Insurance company in support of its contention produced copy of the policy and did not adduce any oral evidence. 4. The Tribunal having appreciated the evidence on record, proceeded to determine the compensation. The Tribunal having examined the salary certificate at Ex.P9 was rightly justified in not accepting the same since the author who had issued the salary certificate was not examined. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal proceeded to take the income notionally at Rs.5,000/- and by applying the appropriate multiplier determined the compensation at Rs.6,75,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads and thus, determined the total compensation payable at Rs.7,05,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 5. The contention of the counsel appearing for the claimants is that the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the income at Rs.5,000/- cannot be accepted, since the claim of his income at Rs.9,500/- is not supported and corroborated by any material evidence. In the absence of the same the Tribunal was rightly justified in taking his income at Rs.5,000/-. 5. The contention of the counsel appearing for the claimants is that the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the income at Rs.5,000/- cannot be accepted, since the claim of his income at Rs.9,500/- is not supported and corroborated by any material evidence. In the absence of the same the Tribunal was rightly justified in taking his income at Rs.5,000/-. This reasoning does not suffer from any infirmities. But however, the Tribunal looking into the age of the deceased who was hardly aged 43 years ought to have considered the future prospects. Insofar as this contention is concerned, we find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. The Tribunal having taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. ought to have added 30% towards future prospects. 6. For the above said reasons, the compensation determined under the head ‘loss of dependency’ requires modification. If the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,000/- and 30% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.6,500/- and if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency to claimants would work out to Rs.4,875/-. Hence, by applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation payable under the head ‘loss of dependency would be Rs.8,19,000/- (4,875x12x14) as against Rs.6,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The second ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants is that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the second respondent – Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle owned by the first respondent did not have valid permit and in view of violation of permit, the second respondent – Insurance Company is not liable. The counsel for the claimants in support of their contention would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for second respondent – Insurance Company would vehemently argue and support the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal on the question of liability and hence, would request that the said finding would not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 9. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for second respondent – Insurance Company would vehemently argue and support the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal on the question of liability and hence, would request that the said finding would not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 9. Having examined the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 , wherein the Apex Court has held that once the vehicle is duly insured, the defence by the Insurance Company that there is breach of policy condition more particularly violation of permit would not be available to the Insurance Company so as to deny its liability insofar third parties are concerned and the remedy to the Insurance Company is to first pay to the third party and then recover from the owner. The Apex Court has also held in the above said judgment that insofar as pay and recover is concerned, are in total consonance with the principles stated as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle. 10. In view of the aforesaid dictum and analysis, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – Insurance Company. In the light of above said dictum, the finding of Tribunal dismissing claim petition against respondent No.2 is erroneous and the same is set aside. Hence, we proceed to allow the appeal in part and the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent No.2- Insurance Company shall satisfy the entire award and thereafter recover from respondent No.1-Owner. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-, Rs.44,000/- may be released in favour of claimant No.1-wife and for the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the apportionment made by the Tribunal would stand good.