JUDGMENT 1. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award dated 31.03.2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of Rs.9.00/- lacs along with interest @7.5% has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 on account of death of one Riyaz Ahmad Chopan and the awarded sum has been made payable by the appellant insurance company with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.4&5 herein. 2. Briefly stated, case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 17.01.2011, deceased Riyaz Ahmad Chopan was knocked down by a vehicle bearing registration No.JK01J-7671 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver i.e. respondent No.3 herein. As a result of the accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and an FIR bearing No.99/2010 for offences under Section 279, 304-A RPC was registered with Police Station, Kunzar. Claimants happen to be the parents of the deceased who, as per the claim petition, was a young person aged 27 years working as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. Claimants sought compensation in the amount of Rs.21.50/- lacs from the owners/driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurance company by filing its reply thereto and even other respondents filed their written statement to the claim petition. The appellant insurance company, while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with it at the relevant time, claimed breach of policy conditions on the part of insured and also denied the occurrence. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether on 26.12.2010, a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No.JK01J-7671, being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently on Kunzar - Magam road and on reaching near Batapora on the Kunzar - Magam road lost control over his vehicle3 and struck against one Riyaz Ahmad Chopan (hereinafter deceased) who was standing on the correct side of the road, causing thereby multiple fatal injuries to the deceased and be succumbed to the injuries on way to hospital? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent No.1 driver was permitted by respondents 2&3, owners knowingly to drive the offending vehicle with invalid and ineffective license and other vehicular documents like RP, FC etc. OPP. (2) Whether the respondent No.1 driver was permitted by respondents 2&3, owners knowingly to drive the offending vehicle with invalid and ineffective license and other vehicular documents like RP, FC etc. on the material date of accident, if yes, the insured has committed breach of policy stipulations absolved the respondent no.4, the company from its liability on account of petitioners claim? (OPR-4) (3) In case the issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP. (4) Relief? OP parties. 5. The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the respondent No.3 herein. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that the vehicle in question was being driven without a route permit at the relevant time and, as such, there was a breach of policy conditions on the part of the insured. After finding claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.9.00/- lacs with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the awarded sum upon the appellant insurance company with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle. 6. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award on several grounds but during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the contention that the learned Tribunal, after finding that there was breach of policy conditions on the part of insured in the instant case, should have exonerated the appellant insurance company from payment of compensation and fastened the liability to pay the awarded sum upon the owners of the offending vehicle but instead of doing so, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in (1988) 1 SCC 626 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.) 7. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in (1988) 1 SCC 626 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.) 7. The second ground taken by the appellant is that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on a higher side, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has taken future increase in the monthly income of the deceased @50% and besides this, the compensation awarded under conventional heads in favour of the claimants is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, grounds of appeal and the record of the learned Tribunal. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that while deciding issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven without a valid route permit and, as such, there was breach of policy conditions on the part of the insured. The said finding of the learned Tribunal is not under challenge before this Court. Therefore, this Court has to proceed on the basis that there was a breach of policy condition on the part of the insured in this case. The only question that arises for determination is whether or not the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay the awarded sum with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the same could not have been done by the learned Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore’s case (supra). 10. So far as the law with regard to payment of compensation and recovery thereof is concerned, it has been repeatedly reiterated by the Supreme Court that even in the cases where the insurer is able to prove the breach of policy conditions, it is open to a Tribunal to directed the insurer to pay the awarded sum to the claimants with a right to recover the same from the insured. This principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 11. In National Insurance Co. This principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao and others, AIR 2004 SC 4882 , the Supreme Court, in a case where violation of policy conditions was proved as the vehicle was being plied without valid permit, directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants with a right to recover the same from the insured. 12. Again in Amrit Paul Singh and Ors. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 ACJ 1768 , the Supreme Court held that the direction of the Tribunal, whereby the insurer was required to pay compensation amount to the claimants with a stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and driver in a case where it was proved that the offending vehicle was being plied without a route permit, is in consonance with the principles laid down in Swarn Singh’s case. 13. From the foregoing discussion of law on the subject, it is clear that the direction of the Tribunal in the instant case whereby appellant insurance company has been directed to satisfy the award with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle is in accordance with the law and does not deserve to be interfered with. 14. So far as the second contention with regard to quantum of compensated awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants is concerned, there appears to be some merit in the said contention of the appellant. The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.3 has returned a finding that the deceased was aged 27 years and that he was working as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. The monthly income of the deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs.5000/- which includes the wages which he was earning as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and the earnings of the deceased from tuitions. However, the learned Tribunal has added 50% income of the deceased towards his future prospectus thereby taking his monthly income to Rs.7500. 15. It is not in dispute that the deceased was not a permanent government employee but was working on a consolidated salary as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and he was also earning income from tuitions. However, the learned Tribunal has added 50% income of the deceased towards his future prospectus thereby taking his monthly income to Rs.7500. 15. It is not in dispute that the deceased was not a permanent government employee but was working on a consolidated salary as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher and he was also earning income from tuitions. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 , has clearly laid down that 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. It is only in the cases where the deceased had a permanent job that an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospectus, has been provided in the said judgment. Thus, the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error by taking future prospectus of the deceased @ 50% of his income. The same is required to be taken as 40%. 16. The next contention with regard to the quantum of compensation advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on a higher side. 17. As per the impugned award, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of care and affection and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded for loss of estate. As per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the compensation under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has been fixed at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. However, it has been further provided that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, in the instant case, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads is required to be brought at par with the compensation provided under these heads in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 18. Therefore, in the instant case, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads is required to be brought at par with the compensation provided under these heads in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the revised compensation to which the claimants would become entitled to in this case is calculated as under: (A) For loss of dependency:- Step-I The monthly income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.5000+40% of Rs.5000/- on account of future prospectus=Rs.7000/-- Step-II A deduction of ½ of the aforesaid amount towards personal expenses of the deceased who was unmarried at the relevant time would make the monthly loss of dependency of the claimants as Rs.3500/-. Step-III The age of the deceased was 27 years and thus applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency of the claimants would come to Rs.3500x17x12=7,14,000. (B) Compensation under Conventional Heads Step-IV The claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.15000/- on account of loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Besides the above, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of medical expenses, as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 19. Thus, the claimants are now entitled to the revised compensation as under:- 1. Loss of dependency 7,14,000/- 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 3. Loss of filial consortium 40,000/- 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 5. Medical expenses 10,000/- Total 7,94,000/- 20. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to revised compensation in the amount of amount of Rs.7,94,000/- along with interest @7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified to the above extent. 21. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms. 22. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal for information.