JUDGMENT 1. All the appeals are being decided by this common judgment, as they arise out of the common judgment and award dated 21/12/2002. 2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21/12/2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos.41/2001(96/94), 34/2001 (69/94), 35/2001 (70/74), 43/2001 (98/94), 41/2001(96/94), 46/2001 (101/94), 47/2001 (102/94) respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17/04/1994, Suman, Mangi, Chatar Daan, Jooni, Rani, Kunnai, Mahendra and other persons had gone from Dhundhada to Godawas Bavji Ka Than in the Jeep bearing registration No. 16 C 0226. While they were returning, one Hakim Khan sat in the Jeep from Godawas. The said jeep was being driven by Hakim Khan S/o. Ramjaan Khan in its correct direction. When they reached at the circle of Village Giradhara, Mangilal driver of the bus bearing No. RJ19 P0681 came from opposite direction i.e. Roopawas by driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit the Jeep No. RJ 16 C 0226 from front side. Due to which, Suman, Mangi, Kunnai, Mahendra, Chhotu Khan and Jeep Driver Hakim Khan sustained injuries resulting into their death, whereas the passengers of the jeep, namely, Chhatar Dan, Jaani and Rani received injuries and the jeep was also damaged. Separate Claim petitions were preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased and injured persons before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal after framing the issues, adjudicating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants as mentioned in the impugned judgments. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, while attacking the finding on issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) has submitted that when the cheque dated 10/01/1994 towards the Insurance of the Vehicle given by the owner of the vehicle was tendered in the bank by the Insurance Company, the same was dishonoured on 24/01/1994, therefore, the Insurance Company on 02/02/1994 cancelled the Insurance Cover Note dated 10/01/1994. An information to this effect was sent to the owner of the vehicle by the registered post. The same information was also sent through registered post on 03/02/1994 to the District Transport Officer, Jodhpur. An information to this effect was sent to the owner of the vehicle by the registered post. The same information was also sent through registered post on 03/02/1994 to the District Transport Officer, Jodhpur. Learned counsel submits that when the Insurance Cover Note (Ex.A-1) dated 10/01/1994 stood canceled, issuance of insurance policy in furtherance of the canceled cover note is of no consequence. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed for a moment that some premium was paid thereafter, the date for covering the Insurance Policy would be effective from the date on which the premium was deposited by the insured. In these circumstances, the counsel submits that the presumption that premium was paid in the present case before issuance of the Insurance Policy on the face of it is baseless. 8. It is further contended that in the testimony of NAW2 Kunj Bihari Dave, the chronological sequences of events came on record that cover note issued by the Insurance Company was canceled and nothing contrary was stated by this witness in the cross-examination. In view of the statement given by NAW2 Kunj Bihari Dave, it is clear that at the time of accident, Insurance Cover of the vehicle was not in existence. It is also argued that no suggestion was given to the effect that any premium was paid after the cancellation of the cover note. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Deddappa & Ors vs. Branch Manager, National Insurnace Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 595 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors (2001) 3 SCC 151 & Ishwar Singh vs. Bheru Singh & Ors (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2001), New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohan Kanwar & Anr (S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.500/1995), Vela & Anr. vs. Babu @ Badiya & Ors, 2012 R.A.R. 9 (Raj.). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the driver of the bus Mangilal was having driving licence of light motor vehicle and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive the bus which was a heavy transport vehicle. vs. Babu @ Badiya & Ors, 2012 R.A.R. 9 (Raj.). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the driver of the bus Mangilal was having driving licence of light motor vehicle and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive the bus which was a heavy transport vehicle. The Tribunal decided issue No.6 holding that since the driver of the bus was holding a licence of light motor vehicle only and, therefore there was breach of the condition of the policy and, thus a direction was given to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. The counsel further submits that the above finding is unsustainable in the light of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which binds the owner of the vehicle to allow his vehicle to be driven by a person holding the requisite driving licence only. In the present case, if the owner allowed the driver to drive the vehicle for a long time though he was holding only a driving licence of light motor vehicle, the same is a fundamental breach of the conditions of the Insurance policy. In such circumstances, the appellant company could not be fastened with a liability to pay the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that vide notice of cancellation dated 02/02/1994 (Annex.A4A), the policy No. 6301942 itself was canceled. Therefore, the Tribunal incorrectly relied upon the policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company on 25/02/1994. He submits that since pursuant to cancellation of the cover note issued on 10/01/1994, the policy itself was canceled, there is no question of considering Ex.-A9 as a valid insurance policy. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) do not suffer from any infirmity for the simple reason that the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was neither canceled nor any notice to that effect was received by the owner. Therefore, the presumption that premium was deposited prior or after the issuance of the policy cannot be said to be unfounded. 41 to 47) do not suffer from any infirmity for the simple reason that the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was neither canceled nor any notice to that effect was received by the owner. Therefore, the presumption that premium was deposited prior or after the issuance of the policy cannot be said to be unfounded. He further submits that as per the statement of NAW2 Kunj Bihari Dave, nothing was said about the cancellation of the Insurance Policy issued by the Insurance Company on 25/02/1994 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the claimants to cross-examine him with respect to the deposition of the premium towards the Insurance of the Vehicle. He submits that the claimants are third party in the present case and if there was any violation of the contract between the Insurance Company and the insurer, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found faulty as the direction of the Tribunal is only to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In whatever situation, as far as the claimants are concerned, the amount is required to be paid to them for the damages suffered by them in the accident. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) are not required to be interfered with. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 2008 ACJ 2654 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, 2004DNJ (SC) 154, wherein in the similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given directions to the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that although the finding on issue No.6 is recorded that driver Mangilal was holding the driving licence of light motor vehicle but it was not proved before the Tribunal that despite driver Mangilal was having driving licence of light motor vehicle, he was allowed to drive heavy transport vehicle by the owner. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that although the finding on issue No.6 is recorded that driver Mangilal was holding the driving licence of light motor vehicle but it was not proved before the Tribunal that despite driver Mangilal was having driving licence of light motor vehicle, he was allowed to drive heavy transport vehicle by the owner. Nothing was come on record that it was well within the knowledge of the owner that Mangilal was having a driving licence of light motor vehicle only and he was allowed to drive the bus which was a heavy transport vehicle. Thus, there was no violation of the condition of the Insurance Policy. He, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this issue also need no interference. 13. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant record of the case. 14. The findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) do not suffer from any infirmity on account of the fact that even if the notice was issued for canceling the cover note on 02/02/1994 and 03/02/1994 to the owner and District Transport Authority respectively, the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was never canceled. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly proceeded in the case presuming that before issuance of the insurance policy, the amount was duly deposited. It is a fact of general knowledge that insurance policy is issued by the Insurance Companies only after the premium is received. Therefore, no wrong was committed by the Tribunal in presuming the fact that the premium for the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was paid. It is also noted by the Tribunal that there was no proof that the notice of cancellation was ever received by the owner prior to the issuance of the policy dated 25/02/1994. The Tribunal in the opinion of this Court did not commit any error while recording the finding on issue Nos.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47), the same is, therefore, upheld. 15. The Tribunal in the opinion of this Court did not commit any error while recording the finding on issue Nos.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47), the same is, therefore, upheld. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the policy itself was canceled vide Annexure A4A is noted to be rejected only on the ground that subsequently after the issuance of the cover note, a policy itself was issued on 25/02/1994. Therefore, the cancellation of the policy on an earlier date which was issued on the subsequent date on 25/02/1994 is of no consequence. It is further noticed that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant Deddappa & Ors vs. Branch Manager, National Insurnace Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors & Ishwar Singh vs. Bheru Singh & Ors (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2001), New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohan Kanwar & Anr (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.500/1995), Vela & Anr. vs. Babu @ Badiya & Ors, (supra) are clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and are not applicable to the facts involved in the instant matters. 16. The contention of the appellant that the driver of the bus, Mangilal was holding only a licence to drive light motor vehicle and since this fact was within the knowledge of the owner, it constitutes a fundamental breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy. It is noted in the finding recorded on issue No.6 by the Tribunal that though driver Mangilal was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle but it is nowhere mentioned or proved that the same was within the knowledge of owner. Beside this, the appellant-Insurance Company has not proved the fact of holding the licence by Mangilal of the light motor vehicle only was within the knowledge of the owner and despite that he allowed the driver to ply the vehicle i.e. bus. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the finding of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.6 and the direction to pay and recover was rightly made in furtherance of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, (supra). 17. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the finding of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.6 and the direction to pay and recover was rightly made in furtherance of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, (supra). 17. In view of above, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company regarding fundamental breach of the policy does not hold any substance, therefore, the same is rejected. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.6 is upheld more particularly in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, (supra) 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have submitted a joint calculation for recomputation of the award in the present case and the same is reproduced as under :- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.676/2004 Death of 1 year old children (in the light of RALSA Guildelines) Rs.2,50,000/- Less : Amount already awarded by Tribunal Rs.85,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,65,000/- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.494/2004 : For future prospects 40% of Rs. 1500/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 600/- Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 600/- Rs. 2,100/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 2,100/-/ 1/3 = Rs. 700/- Dependence Amount Rs. 2,100 - Rs. 700= Rs. 1,400/- The age of deceased was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be applied. (I) Compensation due to death 1,400 x12x 18 Rs. 3,02,400/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 + 10% = Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 3,79,400/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,05,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,74,400/- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.675/2004: For future prospects :- 40% of Rs. 1500/-(Income of deceased) Rs. 600/- Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 600/- Rs. 2,100/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 2,100/-/ 1/2 = Rs. 1050/- Dependence Amount Rs. 2,100 - Rs. 1,050= Rs. 1,050/- The age of deceased was 25 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be applied. (I) Compensation due to death 1,050 x12x 18 Rs. 2,26,800/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 + 10% = Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 1050/- Dependence Amount Rs. 2,100 - Rs. 1,050= Rs. 1,050/- The age of deceased was 25 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be applied. (I) Compensation due to death 1,050 x12x 18 Rs. 2,26,800/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 + 10% = Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 3,03,800/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,45,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,58,800/- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.706/2004 : For future prospects 25% of Rs. 1500/-(Income of deceased) Rs. 375/- Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 375/- Rs. 1,875/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 1,875/- / 1/4= Rs. 469/- Dependence Amount Rs. 1,875 - Rs. 469= Rs. 1,406/- The age of deceased was 40 years, therefore, a multiplier of 14 will be applied. (I) Compensation due to death 1,406 x12x 14 Rs. 2,36,208/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 + 10% = Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 3,13,208/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,80,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,33,208/- 19. Resultantly, the appeals of the Insurance Company are dismissed and the appeals filed by the claimants/respondents are partly allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.1,65,000/- in Civil Misc. Appeal No.676/2004, Rs.1,74,400/- in Civil Misc. Appeal No.494/2004, Rs.1,58,800/- in Civil Misc. Appeal No.675/2004 & Rs.1,33,208/-in Civil Misc. Appeal No.706/2004 respectively in addition to the amount already awarded by learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 21/12/2002. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions till the same is actually paid.