JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are filed challenging the award dtd. 07/5/2015 in Claim Case No.75/2013 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior. 2. M.A. No. 602/2015 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount. 3. M.A. No. 839/2015 is filed by New India Assurance Company Limited assailing the finding of the Tribunal in respect to the liability imposed upon the insurance company. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that deceased Rupendra Singh Kushwah (herein after referred to as "deceased") died on account of road traffic accident on 09/2/2012 while traveling in Matador bearing No.MP07 G 2098 which is a goods vehicle. The deceased was traveling for the safety of the goods, musical instruments, which are used in music programs commonly called as DJ. As per the claimants, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 22 years and he was earning Rs.7500.00 per month. It is further stated that Non-applicant No. 1 - owner and driver of the Matador, drove the Matador in a rash and negligent manner on account of which the deceased fell from the Matador and died. The matter was reported to the concerned police station. 5. Non-applicant No.1/ respondent No. 4 / the owner and driver appeared before the Tribunal and filed reply denying the facts averred in the claim petition. However, later on, he was proceeded ex-parte. Insurance Company filed its reply and pleaded that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle for which no premium was paid, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation on account of breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal framed issues, passed the impugned award and awarded Rs.4, 10, 000.00 as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has also considered the defence of the insurance company and held that the offending vehicle was being driven against the policy conditions, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, however, in the light of case law of National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh, ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ), directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending/insured vehicle. In M.A. No.839/2015 6. In M.A. No.839/2015 6. In this miscellaneous appeal, learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation amount and awarded the compensation on a higher side. He has further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the case law of Swarn Singh (supra) while directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending/insured vehicle. 7. The insurance company has examined Parmanand Verma (NAW-1), who has proved the insurance policy Ex.D-1. According to this witness, the policy is for a goods vehicle and premium is required for the owner or the representatives of the owner. However, in view of the provisions u/s 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the statement of NAW-1 is not found to be acceptable. 8. AW-2 Pawan Kushwaha who has been examined as the eye witness by the claimants has stated in his evidence that the deceased was working in a musical group of one Sunil Bhadoria The deceased and this witness along with other members of the musical group were sitting with the goods (musical instruments used in the music event) on Daala (back side of the vehicle) at the time of accident as the representative of the owner of the said vehicle. 9. The evidence of AW-2 Pawan Kushwaha remained unchallenged in his cross examination. On the basis of evidence of this witness, it is proved that the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle as the representative of the owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that the said vehicle was a goods vehicle and was insured with the respondent /Insurance Company. It is also apparent on the basis of the evidence of this eye witness that the deceased was not sitting in the cabin of the Metador. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that in view of the case law of Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sudamati, [2018 (4) Mh.L.J.], Manager, Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ajay Coudhary and Others, [(2020) ACJ 649], in which the Maharashtra High Court and this Court had taken a view that in a goods vehicle where there is no cabin and the deceased was traveling as a representative of the owner, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. However, in this case, the offending vehicle is a Matador having a cabin in it and, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants is not acceptable. 11. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others, [ (2008) 1 SCC 423 ] has held that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. In the present case, it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the deceased was not sitting in the cabin. According to the eye witness AW-2 Pawan Kushwaha, the deceased was sitting on Daala (back side of the vehicle). Therefore, in the light of the case law of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra), the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, in view of the case law of Swarn Singh (supra), the Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company shall first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter, it has the right to recover the same from respondent No. 4 - Uttam Singh Rathore - owner of the offending/insured vehicle. In M.A. No.602/2015 12. The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency. Income of the deceased was also assessed on a lower side. The compensation amount on other heads are less. 13. For the assessment of the compensation, the age of the deceased has to be fixed. On perusal of available record, it is apparent that the claimants have not produced any document (Aadhar card, voter card, driving license, birth certificate etc.) of the deceased to prove his age at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 22 years on the basis of post-mortem report. 14. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, claimant Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased, has stated that his son was earning Rs.7, 500.00 per month by working as D.J. (member of a musical group). Claimant's witness No. 2 Pawan Kushwah has also stated that as a member of the musical group, they receive Rs.7, 500.00 per month from the owner of their group. Claimant's witness No. 2 Pawan Kushwah has also stated that as a member of the musical group, they receive Rs.7, 500.00 per month from the owner of their group. However, claimants have neither produced any documentary evidence to prove the above facts nor the owner of the musical group was examined to prove that he was paying the deceased a salary of Rs.7, 500.00 per month. It is also clear that the musical events do not happen throughout the year, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4, 000.00 per month considering the deceased as a labour. So far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, since the deceased was unmarried, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the personal expenses to be 1/2. 15. Considering the above factors, in view of the case law of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, ( 2017 ACJ 2700 ), the compensation amount is found to be on the lesser side. In view of the case law of Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the age of the deceased as 22 years, Annual Income Rs.48, 000.00 (4, 000 x 12), Personal Expenses 1/2, Multiplier 18, Future Prospect (40%), the compensation amount of Rs.6, 74, 800.00 (Rs. Six Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred only) is found to be just and proper. 16. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.4, 10, 000.00 to Rs.6, 74, 800.00. The enhanced amount comes to Rs.2, 64, 800.00 (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2, 64, 800.00 shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation