JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2 (Owner). 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment & Award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 60/2014 awarding a sum of Rs. 9,26,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand) only along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing i.e., 15.09.2015 to the respondent No. 1 (claimant) on account of the death of his daughter Lalliankimi in a motor vehicular accident on 19.07.2014 between Baktawng and Buhkankawn village. 3. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Mahindra Pick up bearing Registration No. MZ-06/3136 and it is a goods vehicle. As per the Insurance policy subscribed by the owner of the vehicle concerned, the policy does not cover carriage of gratuitous passenger, since the same is a goods vehicle. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and that if at all any compensation is to be paid, the owner of the vehicle will only be liable. In this connection, he refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339 . 4. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has also passed the impugned Judgment & Award in violation of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He submits that the deceased was 19 years at the time of her death and she being an unmarried lady, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of her monthly income in its calculation. He submits that in respect of future prospect, the learned Tribunal erroneously added 50% instead of 40%. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal instead of awarding Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards funeral expenses should have awarded Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only as decided in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). Likewise, the amount of Rs. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal instead of awarding Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards funeral expenses should have awarded Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only as decided in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). Likewise, the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh each awarded towards loss of estate and loss of expectation of life should be Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only instead. 5. Mr. Zochhuana also submits that the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra) did not award any compensation towards loss of love and affection for parents and therefore, the Tribunal could not have awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh under the said head. He however submits that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case referred to above, the Tribunal ought to have taken 18 as the multiplier instead of 16. Consequently, upon making the calculations as per the decision of the Apex Court, the amount of compensation that can be awarded to the respondent No. 1 will be Rs. 4,83,600/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred) only. He thus submits that the Judgment & Award of the learned Tribunal should be suitably modified. 6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel submits that the appellant did not obtain permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim is made. He therefore submits that the appellant thus do not have any locus standi to file the present appeal. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sangzuali and Another, reported in 2001 (2) TAC 136 (Gau) and also the case of Josphine James vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited and Another, reported in 2013 (4) TAC 22 (SC). 7. The learned senior counsel by referring to paragraph No. 15 of the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal submits that the same is contrary to the written statement of the owner of the vehicle concerned made in paragraph No. 11 of the written statement. Limited and Another, reported in 2013 (4) TAC 22 (SC). 7. The learned senior counsel by referring to paragraph No. 15 of the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal submits that the same is contrary to the written statement of the owner of the vehicle concerned made in paragraph No. 11 of the written statement. He submits that as per the written statement of the owner of the vehicle concerned, the accident vehicle was hired by the KTP Branch, Baktawng for the purpose of social work in National Highways 54. A certificate to this effect was issued by the Secretary, KTP, Baktawng Venglai Branch on 12.10.2014, which was annexed as Annexure-6 to the written statement of the owner of the accident vehicle. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that the appellant has not taken any ground in the appeal that the deceased was unmarried and as such, 50% of her monthly income should be deducted. Therefore, without taking such ground in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the same. He further submits that in so far as the multiplier is concerned, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken 18 as the multiplier and not 16 in view of the Apex Court having accepted the fixation of the multiplier in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). 9. The claim of the respondent No. 1 being under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no necessity on the part of the claimant to prove that the offending vehicle and its driver were at fault. He therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances, no interference of the Judgment and Award made by the learned Tribunal is called for. He submits that at the same time, if the liability to pay the compensation is to be settled upon the owner of the accident vehicle, Court may direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, reported in 2018 (1) TAC 360 (SC). 10. 10. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the authorities relied upon by the parties. 11. Before entering into the other grounds taken by the appellant, the objection raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the appellant does not have the locus standi to file the appeal in the manner it has been done may be examined. As may be noticed, the claimant has impleaded both the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company concerned in her claim application as opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Both the opposite parties filed their written statement denying the claim of the claimant. Section 149 (2) gives the Insurance Company the right to contest the claim. Section 149 (2) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no sum shall be payable by an insurer for the breach of a specified condition of the policy in which the vehicle was used for the purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle. As may be noticed, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Mahindra Pick up, which was registered as a goods vehicle. Therefore, although the appellant may not have taken permission under Section 170 of the MV Act, it cannot be said that the appellant has no locus standi to file the instant appeal. 12. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509 , the Apex Court held that if the claimants choose to implead the insurer as a party, not being a noticee under Section 149 (2) of the MV Act, the insurer can urged all grounds and not necessarily the limited grounds mentioned in Section 149 (2) of the MV Act. If the insurer is already a party respondent, it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the MV Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149 (2) of the MV Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Shila Datta & Ors. If the insurer is already a party respondent, it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the MV Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149 (2) of the MV Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Shila Datta & Ors. (Supra) has been rendered by a three Judges Bench and therefore, the same will have to prevail over the case of Josphine James (Supra) and not to speak of Sangzuali and Another (Supra). Under the circumstance, the present appeal will only be maintainable. 13. With regard to the contention of the appellant that the accident vehicle being a goods vehicle (Mahindra Pick up), the appellant has no liability to pay compensation since the insurance policy does not cover gratuitous passenger. Smt. PC Lalmuankimi, who was examined before the Tribunal as the claimants witness in her examination-in-chief deposed that her daughter on 19.07.2014, along with other KTP members had boarded the accident vehicle for doing community service and while returning, she was sitting on the cab of the vehicle and she fell down. She was evacuated to Civil Hospital, Aizawl and thereafter, she was admitted to the ICU and succumbed to her injuries on 24.07.2014. She further deposed that the deceased was working as a vegetable vender at Baktawng Mualkawi Bazar and was also working as a cook in Baktawng Govt. ME School - I on part time basis. She was earning around Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month and being employed as a cook for a period of 1 (one) year and was being given Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only per month. She was the main bread earner of the family. In her cross examination, she reiterated what she had stated in her examination-in-chief besides stating that the income of the deceased was irregular. 14. It is noticed that in the written statement of the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 2, a certificate is annexed as Annexure-6 and the same is issued by the Secretary, KTP Baktawng Venglai Branch, certifying that the accident vehicle was hired on 19.07.2014 for performing social work. On the other hand, in the written statement of the opposite party No. 2/appellant, a statement is made that there is nothing on record to show that the accident vehicle was hired. 15. The learned senior counsel, Mr. On the other hand, in the written statement of the opposite party No. 2/appellant, a statement is made that there is nothing on record to show that the accident vehicle was hired. 15. The learned senior counsel, Mr. L.H. Lianhrima by referring to the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) TAC 15 (SC) submits that the Apex Court held that if the accident vehicle was found to be given on hire by the owner and was validly insured, the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, in the present case as well, since the accident vehicle was on hire, the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation. However, it may be noticed that the accident vehicle in Kulsum & Ors. (Supra) was a Mini Bus and was plying under an agreement of contract between the owner of the Mini Bus and that of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Whereas, in the present case, the accident vehicle undisputedly was a goods vehicle (Mahindra Pick up) and there is no evidence led to establish that there was a contract agreement by the owner of the accident vehicle and the person or organization which hired the vehicle. Moreover, the respondent/claimant or even the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 2 have not exhibited any document to show that the vehicle was indeed hired. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kulsum & Ors. (Supra) in my considered opinion will not be applicable to the present case. It is thus the conclusion of this Court that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle which admittedly was not covered by the insurance policy and therefore, the appellant/insurer cannot be held to be liable to compensate the claimant/respondent No. 1. 16. Now coming to the next question as to whether the learned Tribunal has excessively awarded compensation towards the future prospect of the deceased and under the conventional heads and also including the multiplier in violation of the law holding the field in this regard. It is seen that the Tribunal has added 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospect while only deducting 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has also adopted the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased. It is seen that the Tribunal has added 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospect while only deducting 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has also adopted the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 9,26,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand) only along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim application i.e., 15.09.2015. This issue need not detain this Court since the law in this regard has been settled by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). Therefore, the award of the Tribunal under the various heads will only have to be adjusted according to the said Judgment. 17. The amount of compensation entitled to the respondent No. 1 will thus be as follows:- 1. Annual income = Rs. 3000 X 12 = Rs. 36,000/- 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects = Rs. 36,000 + Rs. 14,400 = Rs. 50,400/- 3. 50% deduction on personal expenses = Rs. 50,4002= Rs. 25,200/- 4. Loss of income = Rs. 25,200 X 18 = Rs. 4,53,600/- 5. Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000/- 6. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/- 7. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation = Rs. 5,23,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred) only. 18. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Others (Supra), the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the respondent No. 1 and liberty is granted to recover the same from the owner i.e., the respondent No. 2. In the result, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Rs. 5,23,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred) only along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount to be calculated w.e.f. the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 15.09.2015 till final realization. The amount shall be deposited before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order. 19. The appeal thus stands disposed. 20. Registry to send back the LCR to the learned Tribunal.