JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants, i.e., wife and children of deceased Jagbandhu Sana against the award dated 30.6.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada in Claim Case No.403 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,33,000 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal fastening liability on the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle only. Respondent No.1 is wife of Tulsi, who was driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 is owner and Respondent No.3 is insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. As per the claim petition, on 21.1.2011, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle tipper bearing registration No.CG 18 H 0957 by deceased Tulsi, husband of Respondent No.1, the tipper turned turtle, as a result of which Jagbandhu Sana, who was sitting in the tipper died on the spot. Claimants, i.e., wife and children of deceased Jagbandhu Sana filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Respondents for compensation of Rs.16,60,000. It was the pleadings of the claimants that on the date of accident, deceased Jagbandhu Sana was engaged in the said vehicle as a labour/conductor and was returning in the said vehicle after loading sand in it. Due to the accident of the said vehicle, he died. At the time of accident, he was engaged as a labour by the owner of the said vehicle and was getting Rs.5,000 per month. The driver of the said vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was also insured with Respondent No.3/insurance company. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 opposed the claim petition. It was pleaded by them that as the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3/insurance company and the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence, therefore, if any liability arises for compensation it should be fastened on the insurance company. 4. Respondent No.3/insurance company pleaded that deceased Jagbandhu Sana was not working as a labour of the owner/Respondent No.2 and was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle in question. 4. Respondent No.3/insurance company pleaded that deceased Jagbandhu Sana was not working as a labour of the owner/Respondent No.2 and was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle in question. The insured vehicle was a goods carrying commercial vehicle in which the deceased was sitting as a passenger and, therefore, there was a breach of the insurance policy and thus the insurance company is not liable for any compensation. 5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,33,000 along with interest against Respondents No.1 and 2 only. Respondent No.3/insurance company is exonerated to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the goods vehicle and, therefore, there was a breach of the insurance policy. Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 6. With regard to quantum of compensation, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the monthly income of the deceased was not more than Rs.3,000. The claimants have duly proved monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000. It is further argued that the Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards future prospects. Referring to (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi), it is argued that future prospects of the deceased should be 40% of his established income. It is further argued that the Tribunal has only granted Rs.20,000 under the head of consortium and Rs.5,000 under the head of funeral expenses, which should be suitably enhanced according to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra). With regard to liability, it is argued that since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company is liable for compensation. From the evidence adduced by the Appellants/claimants, it is well established that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a labour/conductor in the offending vehicle and was travelling in the said vehicle in the same capacity. Therefore, there was no breach of the insurance policy. Thus, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/owner supported the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants with regard to fastening of the liability of compensation on the insurance company. 8. Therefore, there was no breach of the insurance policy. Thus, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/owner supported the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants with regard to fastening of the liability of compensation on the insurance company. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3/insurance company submits that from the documentary evidence available on record, particularly, from the First Information Report and other annexed documents (which were part of the charge-sheet), it is well established that at the time of accident the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger along with some other persons. As the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and the deceased was travelling therein as a passenger, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was a breach of insurance policy and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from payment of the compensation. Reliance has been placed on 2007 AIR SCW 3591 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla). 9. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties minutely. 10. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, it is well established that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 35 years. With regard to his income, there is no documentary and other evidence available on record on the basis of which it could be said that he was getting monthly income of Rs.5,000. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that he was earning Rs.3,000 per month. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17, which is in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation). 11. In Pranay Sethi case (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows: “59.4. 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. 11. In Pranay Sethi case (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows: “59.4. 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.” 12. Looking to the above law laid down by the Supreme Court and considering the fact that the deceased was getting monthly income of Rs.3,000, an addition of 40% of his established income should be made towards future prospects because he was below 40 years of age. Ordered accordingly. 13. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. There are 4 dependents of the deceased. Therefore, this deduction should be 1/5th of his income as held in Sarla Verma case (supra). Ordered accordingly. 14. With regard to other conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000 for loss of consortium. It should be Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.40,000 for loss of spouse consortium and Rs.40,000x3 children = Rs.1,20,000 for loss of paternal consortium. Ordered accordingly. S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual income Rs.3,000x12= 36,000 2 Income after addition of future prospects Rs.36,000x40%=Rs.14,400; Rs.36,000+Rs.14,400= 50,400 3. Income after 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs.50,400x1/5=Rs.10,080; Rs.50,400-Rs.10,080= 40,320 4. Multiplier applicable is 17 5. Loss of income Rs.40,320x17= 6,85,440 6. Addition of funeral expenses 15,000 7. Addition of loss of estate 15,000 8. Addition of spouse consortium 40,000 9. Addition of parental consortium Rs.40,000x3 children= 1,20,000 Total Compensation = (6,85,440+15,000+15,000+40,000+1,20,000=) 8,75,440 16. Hence, now, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.8,75,440 along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered accordingly. 17. Addition of spouse consortium 40,000 9. Addition of parental consortium Rs.40,000x3 children= 1,20,000 Total Compensation = (6,85,440+15,000+15,000+40,000+1,20,000=) 8,75,440 16. Hence, now, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.8,75,440 along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered accordingly. 17. With regard to liability to pay the compensation, from the statement of witness of Respondent No.3/insurance company, namely, Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Legal Executive Officer and the admissions made by the insurance company, it is well established that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3/insurance company for the period from 6.7.2010 to 5.7.2011 midnight as a goods carrying commercial vehicle. There is also no dispute on the point that Tulsi, driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 18. According to the pleadings of the Appellants/claimants, the deceased was engaged as a labour/conductor with Respondent No.2/owner and on the date of accident also he had gone to the river for collecting sand and was returning in the offending vehicle as a labour/conductor. In their affidavits submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Suchitra Sana, who is wife of deceased Jagbandhu, Bipad Bhanjan, who is claimants’ witness No.2 and who claims himself to be eyewitness and Chandrashekhar Mandal, claimants’ witness No.3, who lodged the FIR have stated that deceased Jagbandhu was an employee of the owner of the offending vehicle and at the time of accident also deceased Jagbandhu and other 4 persons were returning in the said offending vehicle. Contrary to this, in the FIR (Ex.A1) and the morgue report (Ex.A2), which were lodged by Chandrashekhar Mandal, claimants’ witness No.3, it is mentioned that at the time of accident, the deceased and other persons were going in the said offending vehicle for selling their vegetables. There is no mention in the FIR and the morgue report that Bipad Bhanjan, claimants’ witness No.2 had witnessed the accident. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined before the Tribunal. He was the best person who could state whether the deceased was his employee or not. Looking to the above, in my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a passenger. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined before the Tribunal. He was the best person who could state whether the deceased was his employee or not. Looking to the above, in my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a passenger. Therefore, it appears that there was a breach of the insurance policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has fastened the liability only on the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 19. In (2017) 4 SCC 796 (Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh), it is observed by the Supreme Court as under: “13. The only question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the appellants are entitled for an order against the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. (Respondent 3) to pay the awarded sum to the appellants and then to recover the said amount from the insured (owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in the same proceedings. 14. The aforesaid question, in our opinion, remains no more res integra. As we notice, it was the subject-matter of several decisions of this Court rendered by three-Judge Bench and two)Judge Bench in the past viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2008) 8 SCC 246 , National Insurance Co. v. Roshan Lal, (2017) 4 SCC 803 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 . 15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company by reversing the judgment Saju P. Paul v. National Insurance Co., 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3791 of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as “gratuitous passenger” and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the insurance company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover”. 16. R.M. Lodha, J. (as his Lordship then was and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench held in paras 20 and 26 as under: (Saju P. Paul case, (2013) 2 SCC 41 , SCC pp. 52 & 55) “20. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the Insurance Company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 2 herein). * * * 26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to the stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 1.8.2011 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 ] and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court along with accrued interest. The Insurance Company (the appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent 2 herein). Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court along with accrued interest. The Insurance Company (the appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 .” 17. The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.” 20. In the case in hand also, the claimants are wife and children of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2011. The driver of the offending vehicle has already died. Till date, the claimants have not received any compensation. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun case (supra), I am of the view that a direction to Respondent No.3/insurance company, it being the insurer of the offending vehicle, which was found involved in causing the accident due to negligence of its driver, needs to be issued to first pay the sum of compensation to the Appellants/claimants and then to recover the paid sum of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Respondent No.2 in execution proceeding. Ordered accordingly. 21. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.