JUDGMENT : MFA No.31483/2011 is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 in MVC No.44/2008 passed by the MACT, Lingasugur, on the issue regarding liability and also quantum of compensation awarded. 2. MFA No.31484/2011 is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the MACT, Lingasugur, in MVC No.15/2009 on the issue regarding liability and also quantum of compensation paid. 3. MFA No.200018/2014 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. The aforesaid appeals arise out of an accident that occurred on 17.02.2008 where the son of the claimant No.1 in MVC No.44/2008 and the husband of the claimant No.1 in MVC No.15/2009 expired. Thus, these appeals relate to common question of fact and law and are thus disposed of by this common judgment. 5. It is stated that the deceased-Vali Sab was driving a TATA 407 bearing registration No.KA345923 on 17.02.2008 and when he reached Kannari Cross, the vehicle turned turtle as the steering wheel got disjuncted. As a result, the deceased sustained head injuries and was shifted to Ballari Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was employed as a driver and was earning Rs.3,300/per month. The deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident. Having regard to the number of dependents on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/5th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at a sum of Rs.2,640/per month as the loss of dependency and applied the multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.5,06,880/towards loss of dependency and further a sum of Rs.20,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,72,000/as the total compensation payable. 6. The insurer is in appeal primarily on the ground that the deceased was a workman and that the Motor Vehicle Act is not intended to cover the risk of the death of such persons. It is contended that the driver is not a third party and cannot maintain a claim for his own fault. It is also contended that the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. It is contended that the driver is not a third party and cannot maintain a claim for his own fault. It is also contended that the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prembai Patel reported in 2005 ACJ 1323 has held that in such a scenario the liability of the insurance company would be restricted to the liability as determinable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The insurer submits that the compensation awarded is excessive as the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5th of the income as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. It is also contended that the vehicle involved is a goods carriage but the licence possessed by the deceased was in respect of non-transport vehicle and there was no endorsement in the licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. Thus it is contended that there is violation of policy conditions and the insurer was not liable. 7. On the other hand, the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 have contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation and has committed mistake in distributing the compensation. 8. It is noticed that the insurer did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal and did not adduce evidence. There is no dispute raised regarding the accident and the income of the deceased as well as his age and the dependents. 9. It is not the case of the insurer that the insurance policy which covered the vehicle in question was one issued under Section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act. A perusal of the statement filed by the insurer before the Tribunal indicates a total denial of the averments of the claim petition. Thus, the only question that requires to be considered in the present cases is, Whether the claim petition before the Tribunal was sustainable? and if yes, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal had to be in line with the compensation prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act? 10. The issue regarding the deceased not possessing valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and that the violation of policy conditions is now well settled in the case of Shamanna and another vs Divisional Manager, Oriental insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 and therefore, does not call for any dilation. 11. 10. The issue regarding the deceased not possessing valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and that the violation of policy conditions is now well settled in the case of Shamanna and another vs Divisional Manager, Oriental insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 and therefore, does not call for any dilation. 11. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides an option to the legal representatives of the deceased to seek for compensation. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Mohd. Nasir and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 280 , the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is to grant just compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. If in the contemplation of the claimants, approaching the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial, they are entitled to do so and thus the contention of the insurer is rejected. 12. In the case on hand, the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning income of Rs.3,300/per month which is at the rate of Rs.110/per day. The accident has occurred on 17.02.2008. The Tribunal has rightly taken the amount of Rs.3,300/as the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased left behind him, his mother, wife and two minor children and three minor siblings. The Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/5th as the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and thus, having regard to the age of the deceased who was 29 years old as per Ex.P6 (driving licence), the Tribunal has rightly applied 16 as the multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs.5,06,880/towards loss of dependency and awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/under the conventional heads. However, the Tribunal failed to award future prospect that the deceased would have earned which is @ 40 % of the earnings of the deceased. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,53,440/as the future prospect. Thus the total compensation payable including compensation under conventional heads would be Rs.8,25,440/as against Rs.5,72,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under conventional heads remains undisturbed. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,53,440/as the future prospect. Thus the total compensation payable including compensation under conventional heads would be Rs.8,25,440/as against Rs.5,72,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under conventional heads remains undisturbed. 13. In so far as the apportionment of the compensation between, the wife, son, mother, daughter, siblings of the deceased is concerned, the dependency is the test. Looking at the age of the siblings of the deceased, it is quite natural that they were dependent on the deceased who was an earning member in the family. Thus, the Tribunal was right in apportioning the compensation, excluding the loss of consortium, amongst the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 and MVC No.44/2008. Thus, the appeals filed by the insurer in MFA No.31484/2011 and MFA No.31483/2011 are rejected and the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.200018/2014 is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.8,25,440/. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. The award amount shall be deposited by the insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/awarded towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.20,000/towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.20,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses shall be paid to the claimant in MVC No.15/2009. Out of the remaining sum, the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 and MVC No.44/2008 shall be entitled to equal shares. On the amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall release a sum of Rs.50,000/to the claimant No.1 in MVC No.15/2009 and a sum of Rs.50,000/to the claimant No.1 in MVC No.44/2008. The proportionate amount payable in respect of claimant No.2 in MVC No.15/2009, claimants Nos.2 to 5 in MVC No.44/2008 shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank until the said claimants attain the age of majority. In so far as the balance amount payable to the claimant No.1 in MVC No.15/2009 and MVC No.44/2008, it shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The amount in deposit, if any, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal for appropriate orders.