JUDGMENT N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimants are the widow, minor daughter and parents of Shaik Mujahed Pasha, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 17.02.2012. They seek not only for a higher compensation but also for saddling the Insurance Company for liability to pay the compensation. 2. The fact that the accident occurred on 17.02.2012 and the fact that Shaik Mujahed Pasha died as a result of the said accident is not in dispute. 3. The only contention advanced by the Insurance Company to exonerate itself from liability is that, as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess a valid license, in as much as, his license had expired on 17.02.2012. It is their case that the driver possessed had the license only during the period from 01.02.2003 to 30.01.2006 and after a period of nearly six years, the license was renewed in 2012 for the period 27.02.2012 till 26.02.2015. It is urged that as the accident occurred on 17.02.2012, it cannot be saddled with any liability since as on the date of the accident, the driver did not possess effective driving license. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand submitted that even assuming that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess an effective driving license, nevertheless, as per the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER, (2018) 3 SCC 208 , the Insurance Company would have to pay the compensation and thereafter proceed to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle. 5. It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess a license whose currency was valid. In other words, license of the vehicle had expired six years prior to the date of accident. In the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pappu's case , the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability merely because the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. In such a situation, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company will have to pay compensation to the third party and thereafter, proceed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In such a situation, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company will have to pay compensation to the third party and thereafter, proceed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the finding of Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is set aside and it is held that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, contended that if a direction to pay and recover is to be passed, a direction may be issued to the Executing Court to ensure that owner of the vehicle gives guarantee for repayment of the said amount and only thereafter, the compensation should be disbursed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Upendra Rao and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 . 7. In my view, the said argument of the learned counsel cannot be sustained since the entitlement of the claimant to receive compensation cannot depend on the owner's willingness or unwillingness to pay the compensation. It is needless to state that Insurance Company can take aid of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act to recover the compensation from the concerned person. Therefore, no direction as sought for cannot be issued to the Executing Court. The Insurance Company is at liberty to make such application as it deems necessary before the Executing Court in order to realize the compensation from the owner in accordance with law. 8. Now coming to the compensation awarded, it is the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. He also submits that a factor of 40% should be added as future prospects, whereas the Tribunal has added only 30%. He also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and submits that 'loss of consortium' is required to be paid to each of the claimants. 9. He also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and submits that 'loss of consortium' is required to be paid to each of the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand contended that the sums awarded by the Insurance Company is just and proper and do not call for any enhancement. 10. The Tribunal in the instant case has determined the monthly income at Rs.4,000/-, as no positive evidence was adduced to establish the monthly income of the deceased. In my view, in such a situation, the monthly income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of deciding the case under the Lok-Adalat will have to be adopted. Since the accident is of the year 2012, the monthly income of the deceased has to be determined at Rs.7,000/-. 11. In accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , if the factor of 40% is added to the said sum of Rs.7,000/-, it would result in monthly income of Rs.9,800/- and 1/4th of the said sum would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and this would result in monthly income to be Rs.7,350/- for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Since the deceased was aged 38 years as on the date of the accident, multiplier of 15' would have to be applied. This would result in a sum of Rs.13,23,000/- (Rs.7,350/- X 12 X 15) which will have to awarded towards 'loss of dependency'. 12. As held in the decision of Pranay Sethi's case , a sum of Rs.33,000/- is awarded under 'conventional heads'. 13. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision of Magma's case, a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claiments is awarded towards 'loss of consortium'. 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company however contends that the decision rendered in Magma General Insurance, has been stayed. Therefore, it would not be proper to award Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants. 15. In my view, a stay of the judgment of passed relying upon the Magma General Insurance case, by itself, will not render the judgment invalid. 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company however contends that the decision rendered in Magma General Insurance, has been stayed. Therefore, it would not be proper to award Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants. 15. In my view, a stay of the judgment of passed relying upon the Magma General Insurance case, by itself, will not render the judgment invalid. Unless the order passed in Magma's case is over ruled, this Court would be bound to follow the said judgment. Consequently, argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 16. Consequently, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under: Sl.No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 13,23,000 2. Conventional heads 33,000 3. Loss of Love and affection (Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants 1,60,000 Total 15,16,000 The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Insurance Company after depositing the said amount will be entitled to recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part .