JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Case No.392 of 2011 by which claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 38,25,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5 % per annum with effect from filing of the claim petition. 2. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner of the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and permit to ply the vehicle on the road. Under these circumstances, there was breach of policy, hence the Insurance Company was not liable to make any amount of compensation to the claimants. Counsel further submits that the income of the deceased was assessed on the higher side without any basis and the claimants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased, even then the Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,25,000/-. Counsel submits that even under the conventional heads, an exorbitant amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been awarded while as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- should have been awarded. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the income of the deceased was considered on the lower side. Counsel submits that the two Income Tax Returns (for short ‘ITR’) pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 (Ex.20) and 2010-11 (Ex.24) were produced on record. Counsel submits that as per the last return of the deceased pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 (Ex.24), the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,33,161/- but without any basis, the Tribunal has assessed the average income of the deceased on the basis of ITRs of two years i.e. 2009-10 (Ex.20) & 2010-11 (Ex.24). Counsel submits that a few months before the accident, the deceased changed his job and joined SPA Capital Services Limited and as per the documents available on the record, his last drawn salary was Rs. 49,600/- per month. Counsel submits that a few months before the accident, the deceased changed his job and joined SPA Capital Services Limited and as per the documents available on the record, his last drawn salary was Rs. 49,600/- per month. Counsel submits that even this salary was mentioned in the bank account of the deceased, and the copy of his bank account’s pass book was produced as Ex.26. Counsel submits that all these material aspects were overlooked by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. Counsel submits that the date of birth of the deceased was 31.12.1980 and the date of accident is 04.08.2011, hence the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 30 years and 7 months i.e. below 31 years. Even then, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. 4. Counsel submits that while passing the award, not a single penny towards the future prospects has been granted to the claimants. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that fitness certificate and permit of the offending vehicle was not produced on the record, but non-production of fitness certificate and permit by the driver and owner of the vehicle would not straightway exonerate the Insurance Company from making the payment of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants and a liberty was given to the Insurance company to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., & Ors., reported in AIR (2018) SC 2626 has also taken a similar view in para No.23 which is as under: “23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., & Ors., reported in AIR (2018) SC 2626 has also taken a similar view in para No.23 which is as under: “23. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasize, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That part, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 7. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 7. This Court is of the view that while deciding the issue No.2, the Tribunal has not committed an error by directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 8. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is that whether the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased properly or not. 9. In support of his contentions with regard to the income of the deceased, the claimants have examined three witnesses; namely, AW-1 Anju Gupta, AW-2 Krishna Kumar Gupta and AW-3 Deepak Gupta. 10. On perusal of the statements of AW-1 Anju Gupta and AW-2 Krishna Kumar Gupta, it becomes clear that two ITRs pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 (Ex.20) and assessment year 2010-11(Ex.24) were produced on record. The last ITR submitted by the deceased pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 indicates that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,33,161/- per annum, but the Tribunal has wrongly determined the average income of the deceased on the basis of the two ITRs pertaining to the assessment years: 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased on an average basis when the last ITR of the deceased was available on the record which indicates that the last annual income of the deceased was Rs. 3,33,161/-. 11. As far as the documents pertaining to the last job of the deceased are concerned i.e. Exs. 15, 19 & 27 which indicate that before the date of accident, the deceased had changed his job and had joined SPA Capital Services Limited on the post of Territory Manager, this Court finds that no satisfactory evidence was produced on the record to prove these facts. In support of their claim, statements of AW-3 Deepak Gupta were recorded, but this witness has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he left the job of the company in the year 2012. Hence, the Tribunal has not rightly placed reliance on the statements of this witness to conclude the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs. 49,600/-. In support of their claim, statements of AW-3 Deepak Gupta were recorded, but this witness has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he left the job of the company in the year 2012. Hence, the Tribunal has not rightly placed reliance on the statements of this witness to conclude the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs. 49,600/-. A detailed cross-examination was also done of AW-1 Anju Gupta wherein she has specifically admitted that the documents pertaining to the subsequent appointment of the deceased i.e. Exs. 16 and 20, do not bear the signature of anyone. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be believed that the deceased was earning Rs. 49,600/- per month before his death. 12. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, the annual income of the deceased is determined as Rs.3,33,161/- per annum. I find no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra). There is a bracket mentioned in the judgment which deals with a question of multiplier. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the age of the deceased is in between 26 to 30 years, then the multiplier of 17 would apply and if the age of the deceased is in between 31 to 35 years, then the multiplier of 16 would apply. No such arrangement has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment with regard to application of multiplier of 17, if the age of the deceased is above 30 years and below 31 years, hence the Tribunal has not committed an error in applying the multiplier of 16. 13. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that under the conventional head, an exorbitant amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been awarded, while as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants were entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- only. So, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is modified. 14. 2,25,000/- has been awarded, while as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants were entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- only. So, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is modified. 14. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the claimants that not a single penny has been awarded under the head of future prospects and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to get future prospects to the extent of 40%. Hence, the award is re-computed as under:- Income per annum Rs. 3,33,161/- Less 1/4th towards personal Rs. 3,33,161/- - Rs.83,290.25 = Rs.2,49,870.75/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs. 2,49,870.75/- + Rs. 99,948.3/- =Rs. 3,49,819.05/- Multiplier to be applied 16 = Rs.55,97,104.8/- Towards conventional head Rs.70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 56,67,104.8/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 56,67,104.8/- Rs.38,25,000/-Rs. 18,42,104.8/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 18,42,104.8/- 15. In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 18,42,104.8/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 18,42,104.8/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 16. The learned Tribunal shall disburse 50,000/- of the additional amount in the Savings Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in FDRs in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years, to be renewed every year and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis. 17. Needless to observe that the Insurance Company would pay the enhanced amount to the claimant first and then it would be at liberty to recover the entire amount of compensation from the driver and registered owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 18. Consequently, both the appeals are disposed of. 19. Stay application and all pending application(s) stand disposed of. 20. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.