JUDGMENT : S. RACHAIAH, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation as against the judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 in MVC No.466/2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-XIII, Vijayapur. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 05.01.2016, at about 07-00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding towards his land on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29-R-8217 on the Ugalawat-Mustigeri road slowly with caution. A Tum Tum vehicle bearing No.KA-29-A-8409 came from Ugalawat road towards Mustigeri dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, he sustained injuries and died on the way to the hospital. 3. A complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased on 05.01.2016. The case was registered in Crime No.3/2016 against the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle and after investigation, chargesheet was filed. 4. P.W.1 being the mother of deceased Manjunath filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,41,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. The claimant being not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal has filed this appeal seeking enhancement. 5. Heard Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil submits that, the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law and facts. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and required to be modified. He further submits that the claimant has sought enhancement of compensation on different conventional heads and to fasten the liability on respondent No.2. The Tribunal ought not to have arrived at a conclusion that there is violation of permit condition and should not have fixed the liability on the owner of the Tum Tum vehicle. He further submits that though the Insurance company has failed to establish that the accident occurred beyond the permit area, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred beyond the permit area cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he cited the judgments of co – ordinate bench of this Court as follows : (a). MFA No.30752/2011 and connected matters, Smt. Sangeeta and Others vs Satish and another dated 11.07.2018. (b) MFA No.201648/2015 C/w MFA No.200325/2015, MFA No.201533/2015 and MFA CROB. No.200025/2016, Abdul Rouf vs Megharaj Mehdole and others dated 26.11.2020. In support of his contention, he cited the judgments of co – ordinate bench of this Court as follows : (a). MFA No.30752/2011 and connected matters, Smt. Sangeeta and Others vs Satish and another dated 11.07.2018. (b) MFA No.201648/2015 C/w MFA No.200325/2015, MFA No.201533/2015 and MFA CROB. No.200025/2016, Abdul Rouf vs Megharaj Mehdole and others dated 26.11.2020. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 in MVC No.466/2016. 7. Per contra, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company seeks to justify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contends that the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle had violated the permit condition and he did not have valid driving licence. The Tribunal has rightly absolved the liability of the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal as against the Insurance company. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record, the points which would arise for our consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the claimant has made out a ground for fastening liability on the insurance company? 2. Whether the claimant has made out a ground for enhancement of the compensation as against the award passed by the Tribunal? 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant that the Tum Tum vehicle which was plying near Ugalawat village dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and the pillion rider died in the accident. The Tribunal while fixing the liability, exonerated the Insurance company holding that, the driver of the Tum Tum Vehicle had violated the permit condition. The observation made by the Tribunal is that, the Tum Tum vehicle was supposed to be plied within the limits of Kerur panchayath and around 10 kms. However, the accident occurred beyond the permit area, as such liability on the insurer cannot be fixed. To meet this point, sub – section (1) Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dealing with the necessity of permits is to be referred. If any vehicle is plied in contravention of the said provision, the punishment will be imposed as per Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Now, it is relevant to refer to the provision under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads thus: "192A. If any vehicle is plied in contravention of the said provision, the punishment will be imposed as per Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Now, it is relevant to refer to the provision under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads thus: "192A. Using vehicle without permit.—(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. 10. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.30752/2011 C/w MFA No.30753/2011 and MFA No.30388/2012 (MV) dated 11.07.2018, at para-10 held as follows: "There is no dispute about the autorickshaw having insurance coverage as on the date of accident; according to the insurance company, since six passengers traveled in it and that the accident occurred at a place beyond the area permitted for plying and therefore its liability to indemnify the owner gets exonerated. It is not possible to accept this argument. It is not the case that there was no permit at all for the autorickshaw. It had a valid permit, but it was taken beyond the permitted limit. There is some difference between the two. If there is no permit at all, or if a transport vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by the permit as envisaged in S.149(2)(a)(i)(c), the insurance company need not indemnify the liability of the insured for violation of policy condition. But where a vehicle is taken beyond the limits, it cannot be said that there is violation of policy condition, it is contravention of permit condition which is punishable according to S.192A of the Motor Vehicles Act." 11. But where a vehicle is taken beyond the limits, it cannot be said that there is violation of policy condition, it is contravention of permit condition which is punishable according to S.192A of the Motor Vehicles Act." 11. Now, the point is, whether the Insurance company has proved that, the offending vehicle was plied beyond the permit area? 12. It is the proposition of law that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is thus required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy or breach of condition of permit, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. 13. The Insurance company in order to prove that the vehicle was plied beyond permit area has examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. R.W1 has stated that the accident occurred near Ugalwat village which is at a distance of 16 kilometers away from Kerur. However, in the cross – examination he admits that the accident occurred within the Kerur panchayat limits. Ex.R3 is the Permit issued by R.W.2 – RTO, which indicates that, the offending vehicle can ply within Kerur panchayat limits and around 10 Kms. 14. It is also relevant to consider the documents produced by the claimants before the Tribunal. Form No.42 shows that, "Area/Route in which permitted to ply: KERUR PANCHAYAT AND AROUND 10 KMS OF KERUR PANCHAYAT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF BAGALKOT DISTRICT." This point has not been considered by the Tribunal. 15. In addition to the above observation, it is also relevant to note that the police registered FIR against the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. And charge – sheet was filed for the above said offences. It appears from charge-sheet that no case is registered against the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, contention of the insurance company that the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle has violated the permit condition cannot be accepted. 16. It appears from charge-sheet that no case is registered against the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, contention of the insurance company that the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle has violated the permit condition cannot be accepted. 16. On perusal of the insurance policy, it appears that if the driver of the insured vehicle has violated conditions stipulated in the insurance policy mentioned below, then it is said that there is a breach of contract and of course, that breach of contract definitely would absolve the liability of the parties to the contract. The following conditions mentioned in the insurance policy are:- “Limitation as to use The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under the policy does not cover use for: a) Organized Racing b) Pace Making c) Reliability tools d) Speed Testing e) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle.” From a bare reading of above conditions stipulated in the insurance policy it appears that, the driver of the Tum-Tum vehicle has not violated the above conditions. Such being the fact, the Tribunal ought not to have absolved the liability of the insurer for indemnifying the deceased / claimant. Therefore, we hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the liability is fixed on the insurer. 17. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was working as agricultural coolie and the claimant claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the claimant has not produced any document regarding income of the deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2016, by taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,750/-. The age of the deceased was 28 years as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17'. Since the deceased was a bachelor, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. The age of the deceased was 28 years as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17'. Since the deceased was a bachelor, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in (2009) 2 TAC 677 (SC), 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects to the income of the deceased. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the future prospect has to be awarded as per the guidelines issued in this case. Accordingly, 40% of the income can be added. Hence, the calculation is as shown below: Rs.8,750/-+ 40% = Rs.12,250/--50% = Rs.6,125/-x 12 x 17 = 12,49,500/-. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.12,49,500/-towards loss of dependency. 18. As regards other conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/-towards funeral and transportation expenses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has given a comprehensive interpretation, that means consortium includes spousal consortium, parental consortium as well filial consortium. Loss of the love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. In this case since the deceased was a bachelor, the mother of the deceased is dependant, she is entitled to have parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-. As regards, funeral expenses is concerned, Rs.15,000/-is awarded. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the compensation which is stated in the table below: Sl. No. Conventional Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement in the appeal 1. Loss of income due to dependency Rs.08,16,000/- Rs.12,49,500/- 2. Towards love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- --- 3. Loss of consortium --- Rs.40,000/- 4. Towards Transportation and Funeral expenses Rs.00,25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.9,41,000/- Rs.13,04,500/- 19. In view of the above discussion, we answer the points formulated for discussion thus below : Point No.1 In the Affirmative Point No.2 In the Affirmative 20. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. Towards Transportation and Funeral expenses Rs.00,25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.9,41,000/- Rs.13,04,500/- 19. In view of the above discussion, we answer the points formulated for discussion thus below : Point No.1 In the Affirmative Point No.2 In the Affirmative 20. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 in MVC No.466/2016 passed by the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-XIII, Vijayapur is hereby modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation amount of Rs.13,04,500/-. iv) The Respondent No.2 – Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal for the necessary compliance forthwith.