JUDGEMENT/ORDER : 1. The instant appeal arises out of award dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal), in file No. 88/2013, titled, Naseema Begum & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. by virtue of which compensation of Rs. 16,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the respondents/claimants. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant primarily on twin issues. First, that the deceased was travelling in a Tata Ace Goods Carriage. The risk of the passenger was neither covered under the policy nor was required to be covered under the policy and at the most he can be considered as a gratuitous passenger and the second issue is with regard to the quantum of compensation as the income of the deceased could not have been enhanced by 50% and further a sum of Rs. 3 lacs was granted on account of loss of love and affection to the children could not have been granted. 3. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and no liability can be imposed upon the appellant when the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy of insurance. He further argued that. the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents is on the higher side. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in [ 2018 (1) JKJ 25 [SC]]National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ( 2017 SCC Online Sc 1270). 4. Per contra, Mr. Sheikh Aleem, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation and the appellant cannot raise any plea with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents as they had not sought permission from the learned Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the claimants/respondents have filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased on 27.03.2013 in a vehicular accident near Rattan Bas, Banihal. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the claimants/respondents have filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased on 27.03.2013 in a vehicular accident near Rattan Bas, Banihal. It was stated that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle fell in the gorge as a result of which the deceased died. The respondent/claimant No. 1 is the widow and respondent/claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as to the owner and driver of the vehicle. They filed the response. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. Whether an accident took place on 27.03.2013 at about 2.00 p.m near Rattan Bas, Banihal National Highway by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK14C-0168 by its driver as a result of which deceased Rehmatullah Gujjar received fatal injuries? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of the accident in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance and owner is liable? 4. Relief. 7. The claimants/respondents examined respondent No. 1-Naseema Begum, PW Mohd Sharief and PW Mohd Qasim, whereas the appellant-Insurance Company did not examine any witness. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 16,45 000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization to the respondents/claimants. 8. The objection raised by the Ld. counsel for the claimants/respondents with regard to the maintainability of appeal without seeking permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act deserves to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shila Datta & Ors.” reported in 2011 ACJ 2729 (SC) as in the claim petition the claimants /respondents had themselves arrayed the appellants as party to the claim petition. 9. Ltd. V. Shila Datta & Ors.” reported in 2011 ACJ 2729 (SC) as in the claim petition the claimants /respondents had themselves arrayed the appellants as party to the claim petition. 9. The first plea of the appellant is that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and as such the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. The perusal of the objections filed by the appellant before the Tribunal reveals that no such plea has been taken by the appellant and rather it was stated by the appellant that the vehicle was overloaded. Due to this reason only, no issue was framed by the Ld. Tribunal with regard to the plea of the appellant that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger. The vehicle is goods carrier and the owner of the goods can travel in the said vehicle.(See Hanumanagouda V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. reported in 2015 AIR(SC) 1467). 10. The other plea of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has granted the higher compensation to which the claimants/respondents were not entitled to. The perusal of the award reveals that the learned tribunal has considered 6000 per month as the income of the deceased. Further the learned Tribunal has enhanced the income at the rate of 50% whereas the deceased was 40 years of age, so his income was required to be enhanced at the rate of 25%. As the deceased had 4 dependants, so 1/4th was required to be deducted as personal expenses. Further sum of 1 lakh has been granted for loss of consortium and 3 lakhs have been awarded for loss of love and affection. Both these amounts have been awarded contrary to the mandate of judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270). Rather sum of Rs. 40,000/ each was required to be paid on account of loss of consortium to each of the claimants. As the deceased was 40 years of age, so the multiplier of 15 applied by the tribunal is in accordance with Sarla Verma's judgment ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). Thus, the claimants/respondents are entitled to the following compensation under the following heads: A. Loss of Dependence Rs. 10,12,500/- B. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- C. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- D. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,02,500/- 11. Thus, the claimants/respondents are entitled to the following compensation under the following heads: A. Loss of Dependence Rs. 10,12,500/- B. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- C. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- D. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,02,500/- 11. The award of the tribunal dated 17.12.2015 is modified accordingly. The rate of interest shall remain the same. The excess amount of the compensation if deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant. 12. Disposed of.