JUDGMENT Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. Both these appeals challenges the judgment and award dated 31.8.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/VII Additional District Judge, Etawah in M.A.C. No. 353 of 1994 (Sushma Devi and another v. Om Prakash Gupta and others) & M.A.C. No.354 of 1994 (Rameshwari Devi and others v. Om Prakash Gupta and others). 3. F.A.F.O. No.1287 of 1998 has been filed against the Claim Petition No. 353 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the respondent-claimants with interest at the rate of 12%. F.A.F.O. No. 1178 of 1998 has been filed against claim petition No. 354 of 1993 which was dismissed in terms of amount awarded under no fault liability. 4. A very fanciful argument in the rejoinder has been raised by Sri R.K. Porwal which is only raised for being rejected outright. The claim petition was under Section 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted by Sri Porwal that the claim petition should be considered under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act by this Court and the liability should be fasten on the National Insurance Co. Ltd. namely the insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased were travelling though the driver of motorcycle is held to have not contributed to accident having taken place. 5. This fanciful argument is made because by learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sinha, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the driver of bus was negligent and granted recovery right from the owner and driver of the bus as the vehicle seems to be uninsured or rather the owner and driver did not give the details of Insurance policy of bus. 6. This takes this Court to the aspect of compensation as that is the sole aspect which requires to be considered. It was contended by Sri Porwal that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition being Claim Petition No. 354 of 1993 preferred by widow of one of the deceased. 6. This takes this Court to the aspect of compensation as that is the sole aspect which requires to be considered. It was contended by Sri Porwal that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition being Claim Petition No. 354 of 1993 preferred by widow of one of the deceased. The Tribunal with due respect to Sri Porwal had not dismissed the claim petition rather it has over zealously granted amount of no fault liability to the widow of the deceased who as per the postmortem report was 75 years of age. The submission of Sri Sinha, learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the amount under no fault liability which has already been paid is rightly paid as just compensation. Sri Sinha has submitted that impugned order cannot be found fault with as the deceased was above 70 years, the Tribunal considered his income to be Rs. 10,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 5. It is submitted that for no fault liability, the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount in claim petition filed under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. However, Rs. 20,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damage to widow-Rameshwari Devi would be payable with interest as directed herein below. The claimant being non tortfeasor can collect the amount from any of the tortfeasors. 8. This takes this Court to First Appeal From Order No. 1287 of 1998 preferred against Claim Petition No. 353 of 1993. A young man of 25 years breathed his last when he was a trained Junior Engineer. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 15,000/- per year and granted multiplier of 18 after considering that Rs. 750/- would be the datum figure. The Tribunal has granted only Rs. 7000/- towards non pecuniary damages and has not granted any amount under future loss of income is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and are the facts emerged from impugned judgment. 9. The amount requires to be recalculated as even in the year of accident i.e. 1993, the decision of the Apex Court in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K. Velusamy, 1962 SCR (1) 929 was very much there and future prospects were granted. In this case, future prospects had to be granted to a junior engineer who has lost his life leaving behind his widow and children. 10. In this case, future prospects had to be granted to a junior engineer who has lost his life leaving behind his widow and children. 10. The deceased being trained Junior Engineer, his income in the year of accident can be considered to be Rs. 1500/- per month to which 40% should be added towards future loss of income. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as the deceased was survived by widow and one other legal heir. The deceased being 25 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 18. As far as amount under the head of non pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs. 70,000/- is granted. 11. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: i. Income: Rs. 1500/-per month namely Rs. 18000/- per year. ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs. 7200/- iii. Total income : Rs. 18000 + 7200 = Rs. 25,200/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs. 16,800/- v. Multiplier applicable : 18 vi. Loss of dependency: Rs. 16,800 x 18 = Rs. 3,02,400/- vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 70,000/- viii. Total compensation : Rs. 3,72,400/- 12. As far as issue of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 12% rate of interest which is reduced to 9% per annum. The additional amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. Liability 13. It is a cardinal principle that if it is a question of composite negligence then only both owner and drivers of both the vehicle would be liable. In our case, the finding is very clear that the driver of the bus was solely negligent and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of motorcycle. Once it is held that the driver of the motorcycle is not negligent, the insurer of motorcycle cannot be held liable. 14. As per the ratio laid down in the case of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bismillah Bai, (2009) 5 SCC 112 ", liability of Insurance Company insuring vehicle not responsible for or not contributing to accident. In the said case, a Jeep colliding with a truck. Truck involved in accident not insured. 14. As per the ratio laid down in the case of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bismillah Bai, (2009) 5 SCC 112 ", liability of Insurance Company insuring vehicle not responsible for or not contributing to accident. In the said case, a Jeep colliding with a truck. Truck involved in accident not insured. Tribunal recording that driver of Jeep not negligent in driving Jeep and not contributing to accident. High Court fastening liability on insurer of Jeep. Unsustainability. Held. only because truck was not insured, appellant could not be made liable to pay compensation where liability being incurred by driver and owner of truck and not by driver and owner of Jeep". 15. As per the ratio laid down in case of "Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur, (2008) 9 SCC 100 ", a contract of insurance as is well known is a contract of indemnify. In a case of accident, the primary liability under law for payment of compensation is that of the driver. The owner of the vehicle also becomes vicariously liable therefor. In a case involving a third party to the contract of insurance in terms of Section-147 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, providing for a compulsory insurance, the insurer becomes statutorily liable to indemnify the owner. Indisputably, the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured in respect of loss suffered by a third party or in respect of damages or property. In a case, therefore, where the liability is fastened upon the insurer would be bound to indemnify the insured unless the exceptions contained in Section-149 of the Act are attached. (Para15). In certain situation when the Insurance Company would not be liable to reimburse the insured, a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the third party and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is permissible. Such a direction was not under challenge. (para-16). 16. As per the ratio laid down in case of "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. (2008) 7 SCC 428 ", a distinction has to be made between a contract of insurance in regard to a third party and the owner or the driver of the vehicle. In term of Section-147 of the Act a contract of insurance must be taken by the owners of the vehicle only in regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party. In term of Section-147 of the Act a contract of insurance must be taken by the owners of the vehicle only in regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party. Section-147 is imperative in nature. When, however, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks, it is permissible to enter in to a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. The liability of the insurer to reimburse the owner in respect of a claim made by the third party, thus, is statutory whereas other claims are not. (para-16, 13 & 14). The provisions of the Act and in particular, Section-147 of the Act were enacted for the purpose of enforcing the principles of social justice. It, however, must be kept confined to a third party risk. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. 17. In view of the above, it is clear that no further order can be passed so as to saddle the Insurance Company of the motorcycle with any liability. The liability has to be saddled on the owner and driver of the bus. It was not brought on record before the Tribunal nor before this Court whether bus was insured or not. Be that as it may, the said finding that the Insurance Company of motorcycle would pay cannot be furthered for the remaining amount as there is clear finding that the driver of the bus was solely negligent. The driver and owner of the bus have absented themselves for a period of 25 years since filing of this appeal. 18. However, being already deposited the amount under no fault liability, the insurer of motorcycle may not be directed to deposit any amount. The amount should be recovered from the driver and owner of the bus who have absented themselves and have not appeared before this Court for 23 years. 19. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 19. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 20. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma v. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 21. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 , total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided under section 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income-Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others v. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount. 22. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 23. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 23. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As long period has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 24. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.