1. This appeal has been filed by the applicant/ appellant against Judgement/Award dated 30.09.2013 in M.V. Claim Case No. 14/2009, passed by Principal District Judge – cum – P.O., Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih whereby and whereunder Oriental Insurance Company Limited has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.6,27,096/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till its realisation to the claimant in the death of Salim Mian and also Rs.1,57,000/- with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing till realisation for the death of minor son Jahir Ansari whereas claimant/ appellant had claimed Rs.17,50,000/- in Claim Case No. 13/2009 for death of Salim Mian and also Rs.4,87,000/- for the death of minor Jahir Ansari. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that on 23.01.2009, while Salim Mian (deceased) was going to Munnidih Colliery for his office along with his sons namely Sabir Ansari and Jahir Ansari on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. JH 10L 8620 and on the way he shifted his elder son namely Sabir Ansari in a Bus and asked him to wait at Govindpur. However, when the deceased Salim Mian reached near Indar Hard Coke at Govindpur which was situated at Tundi Dhanbad Road at about 1:30 p.m., a Truck bearing registration No. JH 11D 2007 which was coming from opposite direction in High Speed and owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said truck, dashed the deceased and met with serious accident leading to multiple injuries to him and his son namely Jahir Ansari resulting death of Salim Mian and his minor son Jahir Ansari, aged about 08 years. After getting information regarding this accident, Sabir Ansari came there and informed local police and the police on the basis of the fardbeyan, registered Govindpur P.S. Case No. 23/09 against driver of the said Truck bearing registration No. JH 11D 2007. 3. Claimants of Claim Case No. 13/2009 are widow Masudan Khatoon @ Madhunandan Bibi and son Sabir Ansari of deceased – Salim Mian, who have pleaded that deceased was an employee of BCCL at Munnidih Colliery and his monthly income was Rs.14,500/- and due to his death, they have been deprived of their livelihood and as such have prayed for lump-sum compensation amount of Rs.17,50,000/-. Claimants of Claim Case No. 14/2009 are mother and brother of the deceased Jakir Ansari and have pleaded that deceased was a student, hence, got no personal income and as such have prayed for a lump-sum compensation amount of Rs.4,87,000/-. 4. Claimants filed copies of FIR, Chargesheet, salary certificate of deceased – Salim Mian, Death Certificate, Heirship Certificate, Driving License, Attested copy of P M Report etc. 5. Upon summons, opposite parties – owner of offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement and contested the suit. 6. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I) Whether the present claim case is maintainable? (II) Whether the deceased Salim Mian and Jahir Ansari died in the motor accident on Tundi Road near Inder Hard Coke, Govindpur, arising out of use of Truck No. JH 11D 2007 and due to rash and negligent driving of the said Truck? (III) Whether the owner and driver of the said truck was possessing valid and effective vehicular documents at the relevant time of accident? (IV) Whether there has been violation of condition of Section 149(2) of M.V. Act on the part of the owner of the vehicle or not? (V) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the liability of the insured (owner of the vehicle)? (VI) Whether the deceased Salim Mian was an employee of B.C.C.L. and had monthly income of Rs.14,500/- and his son Jahir Ansari Rs.3,000/- or not? (VII) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation amount as claimed, if so, from whom and to what extent? (VIII) Whether Salim Mian and his minor son Jahir Ansari of 08 years died on Head on collision between the two Motor vehicles i.e. Truck No. JH 11D 2007 and motorcycle No. JH 10L 8620? (IX) Whether this is a case of contributory negligence of both the vehicles? 7. After framing of issues, claimants as well as Insurance Company adduced evidences and furnished copies of relevant documents which have been marked and exhibited with the records. 8. (IX) Whether this is a case of contributory negligence of both the vehicles? 7. After framing of issues, claimants as well as Insurance Company adduced evidences and furnished copies of relevant documents which have been marked and exhibited with the records. 8. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed with a direction to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (O.P. No. 3) to pay compensation amount of Rs.6,27,096/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till its realisation to the claimants for death of deceased Salim Mian. Further, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,57,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till its realisation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jahir Ansari through Cheque or Bank Drat, within two months from the date of Award. It has further been directed that if total amount with interest is not paid to the claimants within stipulated time, the claimants shall be entitled to recover compensation amount through process of Court. Insurance Company has also been given right to recover the paid compensation amount from registered owner of the vehicle. 9. Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that Tribunal has erred in deciding Claim Application. Considering age and loss caused to the family due to death of bread earner and a minor child, compensation amount should have been at a higher side. Learned counsel submits that least amount has been awarded to the claimants as Award has been passed in multiple of 7 in place of multiple of 8. Even salary of the deceased/bread earner has not been considered while determining the amount of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that claimants have lost earning member of the family along with minor child and as such they are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation. The amount of compensation should have been enhanced in view of loss of earning member of the family. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(4) TAC 673 (SC) and submits that the amount of compensation should have been enhanced in terms thereof. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(4) TAC 673 (SC) and submits that the amount of compensation should have been enhanced in terms thereof. Learned counsel further submits that Tribunal has erred in not considering future prospect and as such amount of compensation may be directed to be enhanced. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, awarded amount may be directed to be released in favour of the claimants after considering future prospects in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further submits that the amount of compensation should be enhanced at least in case of minor child in view of Judgment passed in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 . 10. On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submits that they are not liable to pay any compensation. Deceased Salim Mian was driving the motor-cycle without having Insurance and was rash and negligent, carrying his son without having Helmet and made head on collision causing their death. There is apparent contributory negligence of Salim Ansari. Claimants have not produced any relevant documents to prove age and income of the deceased. Deceased was to retire in the month of January, 2010. Even the date of birth mentioned in the Driving Licence of deceased shows as 04.03.1950. Learned counsel submits that it is a fit case where insurer may be absolved from liability to pay compensation or alternatively insurer may be directed to pay the same and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in 2018(3) T.A.C. 1 (SC) and submits that said case has been disposed of in light of orders and directions passed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 wherein Court has held that liability of the insurance company is to satisfy decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from owner thereof. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The claim has been decided in favour of the claimant. Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 wherein Court has held that liability of the insurance company is to satisfy decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from owner thereof. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The claim has been decided in favour of the claimant. The deceased died in the accident and the claim petition has been held to be maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(4) TAC 673 (SC) has held in para 61 as under: “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. (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. 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. 12. In the instant case claimants have prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation. The Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent legislation and the concept of just compensation to be provided to the claimants is the settled principles of law. In view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra), it is but necessary to provide just compensation to the claimants who are wife and son of the deceased. 13. The Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M V Act, at Clause-6, refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to the accident. In this connection, Para- 35, 36, 38 and 39 of the Judgment passed in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 is relevant to be quoted herein: “35. The relevant portion of Clause 6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident – (a) Non-earning persons - Rs.15,000 p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. The relevant portion of Clause 6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident – (a) Non-earning persons - Rs.15,000 p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001(8) SCC 197 while examining the tortious liability of the tortfeasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accidents between the age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000 p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000 was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000 was awarded in that case. 36. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in Lata Wadhwa case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000 should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2 lakhs. 37. Further, in Lata Wadhwa (Supra) it was observed that insofar as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class-VI to Class-X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000 p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs.24,000 p.a.. 38. 38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.” 14. In the facts and circumstances considered hereinabove and applying the above rational, this Appeal is being disposed of with modification in Award. The Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of minor son Jahir Ansari. However, if the amount of Rs.1,57,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants, the same shall be deducted from this amount. The amount shall be disbursed to the claimants upon proper identification. 15. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned.