JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since, FAO No. 279 of 2017, and, FAO No. 467 of 2017, both arise from a common ill-fated mishap, hence, involving the offending vehicle, bearing No. HP73-0833, and, also when the grounds of appeal, reared by the aggrieved insurer, rather are also common in both the afore FAOs, thereupon, both the afore FAOs, are, amenable, for a common verdict being recorded thereon. 2. In MACT Petition No. 28 of 2013, wherefrom, FAO No. 279 of 2017 has arisen, the learned tribunal concerned hence assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs.10,02,600/-, and, thereon levied interest, at the rate of 7.5 % per annum, (I) and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of filing of the petition, till its realization, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 3. In MACT Petition No. 55 of 2013, wherefrom, FAO No. 467 of 2017 has arisen, the learned tribunal concerned hence assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.10,02,600/-, and, thereon levied interest, at the rate of 7.5 % per annum, (I) and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of filing of the petition till its realization, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon, the insurer/appellant herein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer , upon, standing aggrieved, by the fastening, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, of the offending vehicle, has proceeded to rear a contest, vis-a-vis, the afore saddling, of, indemnificatory liability, upon, it, (I) and, his contest is rested, upon, despite the offending vehicle hence being evidently depicted, in the RC appertianing therewith, and, respectively borne, in, Ex.R-1/B (in FAO No. 279 of 2017), and, in Ex. R1E (in FAO No. 467 of 2017), rather qua it standing registered, as a goods vehilce, (ii) thereupon, unless evidence stood adduced, that, at the relevant time, deceased Kishan, and, deceased Teju, stood respectively borne thereon, as owner of the goods, and, as a Coolie, (iii) thereupon, the saddling, of, the apt indeminificatory liability, being grossly inapt, (iv) whereas, upon the afore PW-2 Hem Raj hence stepping into the witness box, in MACT petition bearing No. 28 of 2013, and, upon whose information FIR, borne in Ex.PW1/A, stood registered, in the police station concerned, rather in his cross-examination, rendering unequivocal bespeakings, (v) qua, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, involving the offending vehicle, hence happening rather thereat no goods being carried in the offending vehicle obviously, rather renders the afore fastenings to faulter. However, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the insurer, upon, the afore testification of PW-2, for therefrom, his striving, to capitalize, a deduction, from this Court, qua both the afore deceased hence travelling in the offending vehicle, as gratuitous passengers therein, and, obviously without any goods, being loaded thereon, is, an extremely legally frail striving, (vi) as, the counsel for the insurer has remained, unmindful, vis-a-vis, the testification rendered by RW-5, Khem Raj, the driver of the offending vehicle, and, who, in his examination-in-chief, hence echoed, visa-vis, the deceased Kishan, travelling in the offending vehicle, not, as a gratuitous passenger, but as owner of goods, standing loaded therein, inasmuch, as food grains being at the relevant time rather standing borne, in, the offending vehicle. The afore testification, is, meted credence by H.C. Kailash, the Investigating Officer concerned, who while stepping into the witness box as RW-4, has, in his cross-examination, rendered echoings vis-a-vis, from, the road onwards till the place whereupto the offending vehicle rolled into, his detecting, vis-a-vis, grains of wheat, and, also of rice rather occurring thereat. The afore testification, is, meted credence by H.C. Kailash, the Investigating Officer concerned, who while stepping into the witness box as RW-4, has, in his cross-examination, rendered echoings vis-a-vis, from, the road onwards till the place whereupto the offending vehicle rolled into, his detecting, vis-a-vis, grains of wheat, and, also of rice rather occurring thereat. The afore inter se corroboration, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, does, when PW-4, upon remaining unconfronted therewith, upon his being recalled for reexamination, does constrain, an inference qua the afore testification, whereon reliance is concerted, to be placed, by the counsel for the insurer rather not being amenable, for meteing, of, any credence thereto, contrarily, rather hence the insurance acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the afore testification, rendered by RW-4, and, by RW-5, begetting an inference, vis-a-vis, (vii) that at the relevant time deceased Kishan traveling alongwith his goods, hence, in the offending vehicle, (viii) even if the legal heirs of deceased Teju, testify(ies) qua stones being carried therein, rather at the relevant time, and, even if the afore rather stands contradicted by the afore testifications, rendered by RW-4, and by RW-5, (ix) nonetheless merely therefrom, it cannot be inferred, that even, deceased Teju, when stands testified to be performing, the, job of a coolie, and, with the afore testification rendered, by his legal heirs remaining uneroded, qua hence, any conclusion, being sparked, qua the afore deceased, not, boarding the offending vehicle, as a coolie, for, his unloading therefrom, rather the afore goods, as, carried therein, and, owned by deceased Kishan Chand. 5. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurer has, thereafter made vehement endeavour, to, contend that, with Section 66, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "66. 5. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurer has, thereafter made vehement endeavour, to, contend that, with Section 66, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "66. Necessity for permits.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. (2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: 1[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailor.] (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise; (b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes; (c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses; (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; (f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf; (g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; 2[***] (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; (j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods; (k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; 3[***] (m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination; (n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify; (o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver." (I) hence carrying explicit statutory contemplation, vis-avis, the vehicle concerned, being enjoined, to, only within the, routes contemplated, in the route permit concerned, and, with the requisite route permit, not standing placed on record, rather thereupon, it being inferred, that the offending vehicle being plied, outside, the routes, as, contemplated, in the route permit, (ii) hence, the plying of the offending vehicle, constituting rather a fundamental breach of the terms, and, conditions, of the insurance policy, and, hence, it being impermissible, for the learned tribunal to saddle, the indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the afore submission also fades, given, the provisions borne, in clause (i) of sub-section 3, of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, rendering, the requisite substantive, part of Section 66, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, to be inapplicable, vis-a-vis, any goods vehicle, unladen weight whereof, not exceeding, 3000 kilograms. Since, the RC appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, respectively, borne in Ex.R-1/B, and, in Ex. R1E, makes clear bespeakings, vis-a-vis, the gross unladen weight of the offending vehicle, registered as a goods vehicle, being less than 3000 kilograms, (ii) thereupon, the mandate of clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, comes into operation, and, hence, it concomitantly, erodes the play of the opening substantive sub-section, (1) of Section 66 of the Motor-Vehicles Act (iii) and, thereupon there, was no necessity, for the owner, of the offending vehicle, to place on record, the route permit appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, also if the vehicle was being plied outside the route permit, thereupon, also there is, no, emergence, of, any fundamental breach of the terms, and, conditions, of, the insurance policy. 6. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing, for the insurer/appellant herein, has contended, that with RW-2 Navjeet Singh, making articulations, in his testification, vis-a-vis, the driving licence, of the driver, of the offending vehicle, standing not issued from the office of the Motor Licencing authority concerned, hence, the driving licence, issued, vis-a-vis, the driver of the offending vehicle, and, respectively, borne in Ex.R1B and in Mark-R1, being coloured with a stain of fictitiousness, (I) and, this Court being enjoined to reverse the findings, vis-a-vis, the saddling, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the afore submission, is negated, with, the owner of the offending vehicle, in his testification rather rendering an echoing, vis-a-vis, his, at the time of engaging respondent No.2 Khem Raj, as a driver, upon, the offending vehilce, his prima facie verfying the factum, of, his holding, a, valid driving lincence, and, when the afore prima facie verification, vis-a-vis, the driving licence, of, respondent No.2 Khem Raj , at the time of his being so engaged, by the owner of the offending vehicle, is, a sufficient compliance with domain, of, the rule of reasonable care, and, diligence, enjoined upon the owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, as contemplated, in a, verdict, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , (ii) thereupon, even if, the testification, rendered by RW-2 Navjeet Singh is credible, (iii) nonetheless, with the afore testification, rendered by the owner of the offending vehicle rather falling within the ambit, of, the verdict, of the hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in Swaran Singh's case (supra), thereupon, also, the saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, by the learned tribunal, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, does not suffer, from any infirmity. FAO No. 279 of 2017. 7. FAO No. 279 of 2017. 7. Since, escalations, and, hikes towards future gains, vis-a-vis, the per diem income, of the deceased, from his avocation, as a labourer, is also, to be assigned or meted thereto, (a) given the learned tribunal declining, to, make, computation, vis-a-vis, the earning(s) derived, by the deceased, from, the purported agricultural, and, horticulture pursuits, rather for want of credible or precise evidence being qua therewith, hence, adduced, (b) and, hence, computation of per diem wages, of, the deceased, in a sum of Rs.180/-would also naturally, with the passage of time, beget, increase(s) or escalation(s), (c) thereupon, the requisite addition(s) rather towards accretions thereof, are to be meted thereto, and, in the afore endeavour, an allusion is made to the age, of deceased Kishan, age whereof stand recited, in the abstract, of, pariwar register, borne in Ex.PB, to be 21 years, and, hence, in consonance, with the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No.61, extracted hereinafter: "61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. " he, is, hence, is entitled for 40% increase in his apposite per mensem income, borne in a sum of Rs.5400/- ( Rs.180/- x30 days), increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne in a sum of Rs.7,560/-. Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, 2, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.7,560/-, hence, after making, the, apt aforesaid deduction, vis-a-vis, the afore sum, the per mensem dependency, comes to Rs.5040/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs.5040/- x 12=Rs.60,480/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 18, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.60,480/- x 18=Rs.10,88,640/- (Rs. Ten lakh, eighty eight thousand, six hundred forty only). 8. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs.5040/- x 12=Rs.60,480/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 18, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.60,480/- x 18=Rs.10,88,640/- (Rs. Ten lakh, eighty eight thousand, six hundred forty only). 8. Furthermore, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the claimants, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and quantification, of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head "funeral charges", as also, quantification of compensation, in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head "loss of care and guidance of minor children" of is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that-reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the other claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,88,640/-, the claimants, are, also entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, only, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled comes to Rs.10,88,640/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.11,58,640/-(Rs. Eleven lakhs, fifty eight thousand, six hundred forty). FAO No. 467 of 2017. 9. Similarly, escalations, and, hikes towards future gains, vis-a-vis, the per diem income, of the deceased Tejuu, from his avocation, are required to be awarded in view of the Pranay Sethi's case(supra). In the afore endeavour, an allusion is made to the age of deceased Teju, age whereof stand recited, in the abstract of pariwar register, borne in Ex.PB, to be 22 years, and, hence, in consonance, with the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. In the afore endeavour, an allusion is made to the age of deceased Teju, age whereof stand recited, in the abstract of pariwar register, borne in Ex.PB, to be 22 years, and, hence, in consonance, with the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, hence, the deceased is entitled for 40% increase in his apposite per mensem income, borne in a sum of Rs.5400/- ( Rs.180/- x 30 days), increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne in a sum of Rs.7,560/-. Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, 2, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.7,560/-, hence, after making, the, apt aforesaid deduction, vis-avis, the afore sum, the per mensem dependency, comes to Rs.5040/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs.5040/- x 12=Rs.60,480/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 18, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.60,480/- x 18=Rs.10,88,640/- (Rs. Ten lakh, eighty eight thousand, six hundred forty only). 10. Furthermore, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the claimants, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and quantification, of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head "funeral charges", as also, quantification of compensation, in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head "loss of care and guidance of minor children" is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the other claimants. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the other claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,88,640/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, only, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled comes to Rs.10,88,640/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.11,58,640/-(Rs. Eleven lakhs, fifty eight thousand, six hundred forty). 11. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals filed by the insurer are partly allowed, and, the impugned awards, rendered by the learned tribunal, respectively, upon, MACT Petition No. 28/2013, and, upon, MACT Petition No. 55/2013, are, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3, in FAO No.279 of 2017, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,58,640/-(Rs. Eleven lakhs, fifty eight thousand, six hundred forty) along with interest @7.5%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. Furthermore, the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No. 467 of 2017 are, also held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,58,640/-(Rs. Eleven lakhs, fifty eight thousand, six hundred forty) along with interest @7.5%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. 12. The indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the afore compensation amount, in both the afore appeals, shall be, of the insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e. appellant(s) herein. The amount of interim compensation, if already awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation, be apportioned, in the manner as ordered by the learned tribunal. The shares of the minor children, shall remain invested, in FDRs, upto, the stage of theirs attaining majority. However, interest accrued thereon, shall be releasable vis-a-vis their mother, only when she explains, of, its being required, for, the upkeep and benefit of her minor children. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.