JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Claimants (for short ‘the claimants’) against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Claim Case No.179/2012, whereby an amount of Rs.4,89,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that alleged mini bus had valid permit but in violation of the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that as per the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company should first pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the alleged vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that for the same accident a claim petition was filed by the claimants Jagdish Prasad and Batti Lal before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2016 allowed the claim petition and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Insurance Company preferred an appeal before this Court and settled the dispute in the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. Deceased was teaching the students and taking tuitions and earning Rs.10,000/-per month. Alternatively, learned counsel for the claimants also submits that income of the deceased be calculated as prevalent at the relevant point of time for skilled labour i.e. Rs.155/-per day. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the future prospects, whereas as per the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years it should be 40% of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As per the dependency, it should be 1/4th of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount of Rs.7,000/-towards the funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, award of the Tribunal be modified. 3. As per the dependency, it should be 1/4th of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount of Rs.7,000/-towards the funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, award of the Tribunal be modified. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Om Prakash Jain Vs. Smt. Sita & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.215/2014; (2) Raju Dhobi Vs. Jumma Khan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.6357/2019 and (3) Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIR General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018 DNJ (SC) 678. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company because it is a case of violation of the permit and insurance policy. As per norms, alleged bus could carry 17 passengers but there were 30-40 passengers in the bus at the time of accident. So, tyre of the bus burst and bus toppled down. Resultantly, accident took place due to negligence of the driver. So, Insurance Company had no liability to pay the compensation. He further submitted that age of the deceased was 26 years but the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 18, whereas it should be 17. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd amount of the deceased’s income as personal expenses because deceased had 3 dependent. He further submitted that there was no cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month by way of teaching the students and tuitions. So, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. So, appeal be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam & Ors. in Appeal (Civil) No.2422-2459/2001 decided on 20.08.2007 and (2) Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance in Civil Appeal No.49-50 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37534-57535 of 2013) decided on 07.01.2016. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month, but the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month, but the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. Since, the deceased was teaching the students and taking tuitions, therefore, he was to be considered as skilled labour and his income was to be assessed on that basis. The deceased’s age was 26 years. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 18, whereas it should be 17. The Tribunal had not awarded any income towards the future prospects, whereas it should be 40%. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses because claimant No.4 is the sister of the deceased and she is not dependent on him. The Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of consortium and love & affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- as a lump sum. The Tribunal had also awarded very meagre amount towards the funeral expenses as Rs.7,000/-, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly Income 155 X 30 =4650/- Annual Income 4650 X 12 =55,800/- Since the deceased was 26 years of age, multiplier of 17 should be applied 55,800 X 17 = 9,48,600/- 1/3 income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 9,48,600/- X 1/3=3,16,200/-(9,48,600-3,16,200=6,32,400/-) Add Future Prospects 6,32,400/- X 40%=2,52,960/- Loss of Consortium and love & affection to Claimants Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.9,40,360/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,89,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.9,40,360 – 4,89,000 = 4,51,360/- 8. In view of the above, the amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.9,40,360/- instead of Rs.4,89,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. As per the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court the Tribunal should first order the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and then the same should be ordered to be recovered from owner and driver of the alleged vehicle. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and finding of the Tribunal qua issue No.3 exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is set aside. 11. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and finding of the Tribunal qua issue No.3 exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is set aside. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to first pay/deposit enhanced amount of Rs.4,51,360/-(Rs.9,40,360/- – Rs.4,89,000/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same as per the terms of the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. Thereafter, the Insurance Company can recover the said amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 12. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.