JUDGMENT 1. Heard on I.A. No.12642/2022, an application seeking permission to amend the valuation and accordingly to pay Court fee. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has paid deficit court fee of Rs.10,250/- and in support of the said submission he has filed a copy of Online Court Fee Cyber Receipt along with the application, therefore, the Court fee may be taken on record. 3. On due consideration, I.A. No.12642/2022 is allowed and the Court fee is taken on record. 4. These appeals have been filed by the claimants and insurance company respectively being aggrieved of award dated 31/08/2015 passed in Claim Case No.35/2014 by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa. 5. As far as claimants are concerned, their contention is that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9 whereas age of the deceased is accepted to be 55 years, therefore, in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 11 will be applicable. Second ground is that future prospects at the rate of 15% is to be taken into consideration while making computation inasmuch as deceased was permanent employee in the Electricity Board and was working as Lineman. It is further submitted that amount awarded under the head of non- pecuniary compensation shall be suitably modified as they are in violation of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , but in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [2020 SCC Online SC 410], four of the children will be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium. 6. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, in his turn, submits that there are two aspects on which insurance company has filed this appeal namely Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the aspect of lack of fitness of the offending vehicle and secondly, there was breach of license inasmuch as driver of the offending vehicle was having a license to drive a LMV whereas he was driving a commercial vehicle namely Mahindra Pickup bearing registration No.M.P.-17-C-4989. 7. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As far as two submissions made by Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company are concerned, it has come on record that unladen weight of the pickup vain is 1470 kilogram which brings it under category of a Light Motor Vehicle in terms of definition of a Light Motor Vehicle given under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 , mere absence of endorsement will not exonerate the insurance company. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that Insurance Company had examined Shri Lalit Kumar Shukla from the RTO Office Rewa who had deposed that driving license of the driver of offending vehicle was effective and valid from 31/10/2006 to 30/10/2026. However, he admitted that vehicle bearing unladen weight of less than 7500 kilogram comes under the category of LMV. 10. One Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta was also examined to point out that as per computerized record from his Office it could not be said that any fitness was issued for the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 11. The fact of the matter is that Officer of the Insurance Company namely Shri Rakesh Kumar Trivedi could not prove any violation of the insurance policy due to absence of fitness. 12. Thus, as far appeal (M.A. No.2463/2015) filed by the insurance company is concerned, it is devoid of merit in the light of the law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ManoD and others, 2014 ACJ 2389 , wherein it is held that in the event of failure of the insurance company to specify any terms of policy showing the necessity of fitness certificate and unless and until violation of Section 149 are specified and established, non-availability of fitness certificate would not amount to violation of the terms and conditions of policy. Hence, appeal filed by the Insurance Company on two grounds fails and is dismissed. Finding of pay and recover is set aside in the light of the law law down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 13. Hence, appeal filed by the Insurance Company on two grounds fails and is dismissed. Finding of pay and recover is set aside in the light of the law law down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 13. As far as appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, both the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellants are made out. Tribunal has considered net annual dependency of the family at Rs.1,93,932/- per annum after making 1/4th deduction. When 15% is added towards future prospects, then it will come out to Rs.2,23,021.80. Multiplier of 11 is applicable as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra). When this multiplier is applied, then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs.24,53,240/- against a sum of Rs.17,45,388/-. Thus, there will be addition under the head of pecuniary compensation to the extent of Rs.07,07,852/-. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation which needs to be modified to Rs.70,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, last rites and loss of estate as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Besides this, deceased is survived by four children and each of the children will be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra). Thus, there will be net addition of Rs.2,30,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation. Hence, after making adjustment for Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, there will be addition of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total addition to Rs.8,07,852/- to which claimants will be entitled to. This additional amount will also earn interest B 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 15. In above terms, M.A. No.258/2016 filed by the claimants is hereby disposed of and M.A. No.2463/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 16. Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back immediately.