JUDGMENT : This appeal arises out of Judgement/Award dated 17.05.2016, passed by District Judge - IX- cum - M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 305/2010 whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the claimants/plaintiffs has been allowed and defendant no. 2/united India Insurance Co. Limited has been directed to make payment of Rs.3,06,500/- (Rs. Three Lacs Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the plaintiffs alongwith interest payable @9% per annum from the date of filing till the date of its realisation, within a period of one month. 2. Claim application was preferred by plaintiffs under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation of Rs.5,86,000/- due to death of their son – Tabrej Ansari alleging therein that on 26.06.2010, at about 9:30 p.m., deceased was travelling in a Tempo bearing registration no. JH-10R 5153. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the tempo in question fell down on the road and consequent thereto, Tabrej Ansari died on the spot. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Hamid Mian (father of the deceased), Jharia P.S. Case No. 199/2010, dated 26.06.2010, under Sections 279/337/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against said driver of the vehicle. Upon summon/notices, both the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. 3. The defendant no. 2/appellant – Insurance Company has taken the preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable, barred under the principles of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and the same is bad either in law or in fact and was fit to be dismissed. The Insurance Company further denied that the deceased was travelling in the said tempo in question or the driver of the said vehicle was driving the tempo in rash and negligent manner. Insurance Company further took the plea that the driver of the tempo was not impleaded as a party and as such the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of party. Insurance Company further denied that a person like deceased, who was of 19 years of age, can earn Rs.150/- daily and Rs.4,500/- per month. Insurance Company further alleged that the plaintiffs were not liable to get any compensation because deceased was not cleaner/Khalasi of the tempo or in any manner employed under defendant no. Insurance Company further denied that a person like deceased, who was of 19 years of age, can earn Rs.150/- daily and Rs.4,500/- per month. Insurance Company further alleged that the plaintiffs were not liable to get any compensation because deceased was not cleaner/Khalasi of the tempo or in any manner employed under defendant no. 1 and/or traveling in the same vehicle at the time of alleged accident and thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay at all any sum of money in terms of compensation. The defendant no. 2/appellant has further denied occupation and income of the deceased and has further prayed to dismiss claim petition. 4. The defendant no. 1 – owner of the temp also filed written statement denying allegations made by the plaintiffs. It has further been alleged that owner was having valid papers such as certificate of fitness, road permit, tax token, valid insurance policy on the date and time of alleged accident and driver of the said tempo had valid and effective driving license which was valid till 23.11.2010. It was further contended that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of insurance policy and as such the defendant cannot escape from his liabilities. The defendant no. 1 has also denied any monthly income of the deceased. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (II) Is there any cause of action for the present suit? (III) Whether deceased Tabrej Ansari died on 26.06.2010 at about 9:30 p.m. near Dukharni Mandirin a road accident within the jurisdiction of Jharia P.S., while, he was travelling in Tempo bearing registration no. JH 10R 5153 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tempo? (IV) Whether Md. Yusuf, defendant no. 1, was the real owner of the aforesaid vehicle at the time of accident? (V) Whether the driver of tempo had a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? (VI) Whether the tempo bearing registered no. JH 10R 5153 was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident? (VII) Is the claimant entitled for any other relief/ relieves? (VIII) Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation as prayed? 6. After framing of issues, claimants as well as the Insurance Company adduced their evidences and furnished copies of documents. JH 10R 5153 was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident? (VII) Is the claimant entitled for any other relief/ relieves? (VIII) Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation as prayed? 6. After framing of issues, claimants as well as the Insurance Company adduced their evidences and furnished copies of documents. The documents produced by the parties have been marked and exhibited with the records. 7. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and defendant no. 2/appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. has been directed to make payment of Rs.3,06,500/- to the plaintiffs alongwith interest payable @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of its realisation, within one month. 8. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that deceased was not employed by owner of the vehicle, which has also been admitted by him in his written statement before the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that in the proposal form as well as in the original policy (which has already been exhibited before the Tribunal), the Insurance Company had not taken any premium for the gratuitous passenger like deceased. Learned counsel further argues that even if deceased died in the road accident, there was no such proposal or acceptance in the insurance policy and deceased was not insured as Khalasi/cleaner and thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the defendants of such deceased even if he died in the said road accident and as such the Insurance Company may be absolved from payment of claim amount. Further it has been alleged that without any authentic proof of income, learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased and accordingly awarded the amount, which is fit to be set aside. There is apparent violation of terms of insurance policy. 9. Learned counsel submits that it is a case where owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned Judgment and Award or alternatively the amount of compensation awarded be directed to be paid by owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned Judgment and Award or alternatively the amount of compensation awarded be directed to be paid by owner of the offending vehicle. This 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. 10. Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1-owner of the vehicle submits that there is no violation of any terms of policy. Insurer is liable for the amount of compensation. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The claim has been decided in favour of the claimants. 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. 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. (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 owner of the offending vehicle has not been able to controvert points raised by the appellant/ Insurance Company and negligence on their part is fully proved. The owner of the vehicle has not been able to satisfy the violation of terms of insurance policy. The deceased is found to be gratuitous passenger and there was no insurance policy for such passengers. 13. The owner of the vehicle has not been able to satisfy the violation of terms of insurance policy. The deceased is found to be gratuitous passenger and there was no insurance policy for such passengers. 13. In the circumstances, I find merit in this appeal and it is accordingly allowed. However, applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), to subserve ends of justice, the insurer (appellant) shall pay claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 3) in accordance with law. 14. 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 mother and sister of the deceased. 15. The appellant/ Insurance Company shall pay compensation amount as awarded to the claimants/ respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order with liberty to recover the same from owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 3) in accordance with law. Amount deposited, if any, by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. The claimants are at liberty to receive amount as per direction of this Court in view of terms and conditions of the Award. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. 16. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that in view of order dated 21.09.2017, the Insurance Company had deposited cheque to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. If the amount has not been disbursed, the unused cheque may be returned back to the Insurance Company in order to revalidate the same and issue fresh cheque against total amount of compensation along with interest, in terms of Award. 17. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned. 18. Let a copy of this order be handed over to parties concerned.