JUDGMENT : 1. This batch of appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 7.10.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, 15th Fast Track Court, Vadodara the details of the same is as under: Sr.No. First Appeal No. MACP No. First Appeal filed by (Appellant herein) Details of Claim petition before the Tribunal Award by Tribunal 1. 1285/2007 1099/1999 New India Assurance Co.(Insurance Co. of Truck No. MH 06-K-918) Filed by legal heirs of the deceased Ansuyaben Rs.2,95,000/- 2. 1286/2007 1241/1999 New India Assurance Co.(Insurance Co. of Truck No. MH 06-K-918) Filed by legal heirs of driver of Metador seeking compensation of Rs.9,50,000 Rs.8,89,000/- 3. 1287/2007 1786/1999 New India Assurance Co. (Insurance Co. of Truck No. MH 06-K-918) Legal heirs of owner of Metador seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- Rs,11,05,000/- 4. 1288/2007 1502/2000 New India Assurance Co. (Insurance Co. of Truck No. MH 06-K-918) Legal heirs of owner of Metador for the damage to Metador seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 5. Cross Obj. 163/2007 1502/2000 Original claimants (legal heirs of driver of Metador) Claim petition was filed for Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 6. 4799/2007 1786/1999 National Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurance Co. of Metador No. GJ-6U 1225) Rs.2,76,250/-(out of Rs.11,05,000/- ; being 25% liability to be paid by National Insurance Co. Ltd. 7. Cross Obj. 162/2007 1786/1999 Original claimants (legal heirs of driver of Metador) Claim petition was filed for Rs.15,00,000/- Rs.11,05,000/- 2. In all these claim petitions, the compensation was awarded with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 3. Since the above referred batch of appeals and cross objection are arising out of common judgment and award from the same accident, with the consent of the learned advocates for respective parties, they are heard and decided together. 4. The facts are: On 28.4.1999, the original claimants were started travelling from Vadodara to Mahad to attend wedding ceremony of their relative. They all were travelling in Metador No.GJ 6U 1225 and while travelling on 30.4.1999 on Bombay Goa Highway when the Metador reached near Pandarpur village, a Truck No. MH 06-K-918 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Metador. They all were travelling in Metador No.GJ 6U 1225 and while travelling on 30.4.1999 on Bombay Goa Highway when the Metador reached near Pandarpur village, a Truck No. MH 06-K-918 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Metador. For the said accident, the driver of Metador Santosh Madhukar Kadam and owner of Metador Rajaram Govind Utekar and other 6 to 7 passengers travelling in the said Metador died as well as others got injured. The Metador was also badly damaged. It was case of the original claimants that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck No. MH 06-K-918. For the said accident, FIR was lodged being C.R. No.39 of 1999 before the Vadlam Police Station.Panchnama was also prepared. The original claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation as under: 1. MACP No.1241 of 1999 filed by legal heirs of driver of Metador seeking compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-. 2. MACP No.1786 of 1999 was filed by legal heirs of owner of the Metador seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. MACP No.1502 of 2000 was filed by legal heirs of owner of the Metador seeking Rs.2,00,000/- damage to the Metador. Upon claim petition being filed, the Tribunal issued notices. The respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence on record awarded compensation as stated in the table referred above. In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held driver of Truck No. MH 06-K-918, as negligent to the extent of 75% and driver of Metador No.GJ 6U 1225 negligent to the extent of 25%. Being aggrieved by the liability fastened on the Insurance Company of truck, First Appeal No.1286 of 2007, 1287 of 2007 and 1288 of 2007 are filed by Insurance Company of Truck as appellant, whereas First Appeal No.4799 of 2007 is filed by Insurance Company of Metador. The Cross Objections No.162 of 2007 and Cross Objections No.163 of 2007 are filed by legal heirs of owner of Metador seeking enhancement. 5. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the New India Assurance Company (Insurance company of Truck No. MH 06 K 918) and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for National Insurance Company (Insurance Company of Metador No. GJ 6U 1225) and Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for original claimants who are legal heirs of owner of Metador. 5. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the New India Assurance Company (Insurance company of Truck No. MH 06 K 918) and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for National Insurance Company (Insurance Company of Metador No. GJ 6U 1225) and Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for original claimants who are legal heirs of owner of Metador. I. First Appeal No.1285 of 2007 arising out of MACP No.1099 of 1999 This First Appeal No.1285 of 2007 is filed by the Insurance Company of Truck as appellant challenging the compensation awarded of Rs.2,95,000/- to legal heirs of deceased Ansuyaben. Referring to the cause title of MACP No.1099 of 1999, Mr.Nanavati submitted that the claim petition was filed by elder brothers of deceased Ansuyaben - Ravindra Mangaji Ambulkar & Shashikant Mangaji Ambulkar, wherein undisputedly the age of claimant is mentioned as 30 years and 28 years respectively. Further, the Tribunal took note of the fact that at the time of death, Ansuyaben was aged 15 years and despite having no evidence in relation to her income, only on oral evidence, the Tribunal took notional income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- and awarded dependency loss of Rs.2,70,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards notional loss and thus total compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal is in error because the elder brother aged 30 years cannot be dependent on the earning of minor sister. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision in the case of Gian Chand vs. Gurlabh Singh reported in 2016(16) SCC 590 , and the decision of co-ordinate bench in case of TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kunjal Jitendra Joshi in First Appeal No.1850 of 2019 and others. The Tribunal is, therefore, in error in granting compensation towards dependency loss. He fairly submitted that the original claimants would be entitled for only no fault liability in case of death of a person which would amount to Rs.50,000/- as per Section 140 of the Act. Record shows though served, claimants chose not to appear. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant, it is noticed that undisputedly, original claim petition was filed by elder brother of the deceased. The Tribunal considering notional income of the deceased, awarded compensation towards dependency loss. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand & others (supra) has held as under: “10. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant, it is noticed that undisputedly, original claim petition was filed by elder brother of the deceased. The Tribunal considering notional income of the deceased, awarded compensation towards dependency loss. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand & others (supra) has held as under: “10. Coming to the question of compensation to be awarded the claimants are the parents. Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.” Further in the decision of TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kunjal Jitendra Joshi (Supra), this Court in para 15, has held as under: “15. Even at the cost of repetition, it deserves to be noted that in the case on hand, the claimant is resident of Canada since more than a decade and is having his independent income as well as income of his wife and the evidence on record therefore does not exhibit that the claimant in any manner can be said to be largely dependent on earning of his parents/brother, nor it is the case of the claimant that he was staying with his parents/brother. Hence, in the instant case, it cannot be termed as ‘dependent’. We are conscious of the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent legislation. However, the facts as considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Birender (supra) were totally different, whereas, in the instant case, the claimant is well-settled in Canada and is earning in foreign currency and hence, the judgment in the case of Birender (supra) would not be applicable and following the judgment of this Court in the case of Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora (supra), the claimant cannot be termed as ‘dependent’. Though the claim petitions are maintainable as the claimant is the legal representative of the estate, even applying principle of Hindu Law, though all the 3 occupants of the car have died simultaneously, it has to be presumed that Dr.Jitendra P. Joshi being eldest died first followed by Devyaniben and then Jaydeep. Though the claim petitions are maintainable as the claimant is the legal representative of the estate, even applying principle of Hindu Law, though all the 3 occupants of the car have died simultaneously, it has to be presumed that Dr.Jitendra P. Joshi being eldest died first followed by Devyaniben and then Jaydeep. In such circumstances, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.50,000/- in each of the claim petitions along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization.” In facts of this case, considering the age of the deceased and the original claimants, the claimants cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased and, therefore, in my opinion, they are not entitled for loss of dependency as claimed. The Tribunal is therefore in error in granting dependency loss to the original claimants. The claimants would only be entitled to no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act to the extent of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant (Insurance company of truck) would therefore be entitled to refund of balance amount [Rs 2,95,000/- – Rs. 50,000/-] along with interest accrued thereon. However, in clause 8 of award, it is recorded by the Tribunal that if the amount towards no fault liability has been paid by the Insurance company, then 65% of the amount was to be put in fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for 5 years and 35% was to be disbursed to the original claimants. If the amount as directed in clause 8 of award has been deposited by the Insurance Company of Truck towards no fault liability and 35% has been disbursed, then the amount disbursed is required to be reduced from the amount of no-fault liability. The appeal of the insurance company is thus allowed to the aforestated extent. II. First Appeal No.1286 of 2007 First Appeal No.1286 of 2007 is filed by the Insurance Company of the truck as appellant. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Nanavati, submitted that the present appeal is filed challenging the liability fastened on the appellant (Insurance company of Truck) as the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company jointly and severely liable. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 25% of amount awarded as the driver of Metador was held negligent to the extent of 25%. Nanavati, submitted that the present appeal is filed challenging the liability fastened on the appellant (Insurance company of Truck) as the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company jointly and severely liable. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 25% of amount awarded as the driver of Metador was held negligent to the extent of 25%. He further submitted that since the Insurance Company of Metador (National Insurance Company) has not challenged the award dated 07.10.2006, has deposited the amount of 25%, the appellant herein – Insurance Company of Truck is now only liable to the extent of 75%. In other words, the liability of Insurance Company of Truck gets reduced to the extent of 25%. He, therefore, fairly submitted that he is not pressing the present appeal as his liability is only limited to the extent of 75%. Further, the amount of 25% has already been deposited by the Insurance Company of Metador, therefore, this appeal without going into the merits of the matter, may be disposed of as not pressed. Considering the submission, this Court without going into the merits of the matter, deemed it appropriate to dispose of this Appeal (First Appeal No.1286 of 2007) as not pressed. It is made clear that, this court has not entered into the merits of the matter. The appeal is therefore disposed of. No costs. III. First Appeal No.1287 of 2007 with Cross Objections No.162 of 2007 (in First Appeal No.1287 of 2007) with First Appeal No. 4799 of 2007 (all arises out of MACP No.1786 of 1999) Both these appeals (i.e. First Appeal Nos.1287 of 2007 and 4799 of 2007 are filed challenging the liability fasten on insurance companies (Insurance company of truck and insurance company of Metador). Cross Objections are filed seeking enhancement of compensation. Appearing for the appellant- National Insurance Company (Insurance Company of the Metador) learned advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company of the Metador to the extent of 25%. He submitted that the policy shows that owner of the Metador had paid premium of Rs.2267/- towards own damage, Rs.933/- towards pre-basic premium covering 3rd party liability, Rs.1242/- towards legal liability of passengers, Rs.15/- for employees and Rs.50 for unlimited 3rd party property damage. He submitted that the policy shows that owner of the Metador had paid premium of Rs.2267/- towards own damage, Rs.933/- towards pre-basic premium covering 3rd party liability, Rs.1242/- towards legal liability of passengers, Rs.15/- for employees and Rs.50 for unlimited 3rd party property damage. As no premium is paid covering the risk of the insured himself (owner of the vehicle) the Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company of the Metador. He submitted that the tort feasor cannot take the advantage of his own wrong. Referring to Exh.24, written statement filed by the Insurance Company of Metador, he submitted that a specific ground was taken before the Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle was travelling in a Metador in his capacity as owner of the vehicle and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the original claimants were not entitled to the claim made as no extra premium covering the risk of the owner was paid. In support of his submissions, he relied upon following decisions: (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi and others reported in (2008)5 SCC 736 . (ii) The coordinate bench decision dated 04.05.2022 in First Appeal No.1601 of 2010 in the case of National Insurance Company, Regional Office at Hasubhai vs. Dilipkumar Pragjibhai Joshi ands (iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhuma Saha (SMT) and others reported in 2007(9) SCC 263 . and submitted that as held in above decisions, Section 147 does not require Insurance Company to assume risk of death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. The appellant- Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation only for the items which are covered under clauses of policy and such liability would be limited to the extent to which the risk is covered by the policy. In this case as the risk of the owner of the vehicle is not covered under the policy, therefore, the Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability to the extent of 25% to the Insurance Company of the Metador. Moreover, in MACP No.1786 of 1999, insurer of matador was not joined as party opponent and, therefore, also the Insurance Company is to indemnify the claim against the appellant-Insurance Company. On the other hand, Mr. Moreover, in MACP No.1786 of 1999, insurer of matador was not joined as party opponent and, therefore, also the Insurance Company is to indemnify the claim against the appellant-Insurance Company. On the other hand, Mr. Hakim for the original claimant (legal heirs of owner of Metador) submitted that the contention raised in the present appeal was not taken at the stage of adjudication of the claim petition and, therefore, they are precluded from placing the same into service. He further submitted that the Insurance Company of Metador has failed in producing the terms and conditions of the policy before the Tribunal and, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated at the stage of appeal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bachubhai Chandubhai Vasava reported in (2010) 1 GLR 49 . He further submitted that if the vehicle involved is passenger service vehicle, then insurance company is duty bound to indemnify the risk of owner being passenger of the Metador and therefore, insurance company may not be exonerated from its liability merely on the ground that the tort feasor cannot take advantage of its own wrong. In Support of his submission he relied upon decision of this court in case of National Insurance Company v/s Vijiyagauri Kalidas & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 GLR 1047 . In relation to the quantum of compensation, he submitted that the bank statement of the deceased supporting the income earned at the time of accident was on record. Relying upon Exh.60, the bank passbook, he submitted that the deceased was paying installment of Rs.6750/- towards loan taken of Rs.2,25,000/- and, therefore, the income considered by the Tribunal of Rs.6000/- is less and needs enhancement. However, he fairly pointed out that so far as future prospective income is concerned, Tribunal took into consideration 50%, instead it would be 25%. For personal expenses, instead of 1/3, 1/4 is to be deducted as per the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 . For multiplier, 14 would be applicable instead of 15. For personal expenses, instead of 1/3, 1/4 is to be deducted as per the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 . For multiplier, 14 would be applicable instead of 15. For conventional heads, he submitted that original claimants are also entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and there being 5 dependents, it would be Rs.2,00,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, he submitted to modify the award and enhance the compensation accordingly. He thus submitted that the appeal of the Insurance Company of Metador deserves to be dismissed and his Cross-Objections are to be allowed and the compensation is required to be enhanced accordingly. Responding to the submissions canvased by Mr.Hakim, Ld. advocate for the original claimants, Ld. Advocate Mr.Nanavati (Insurance company of Truck) submitted that the Tribunal in this case has fastened the liability jointly and severely by holding the driver of truck negligent to the extent of 75% and driver of Metador to the extent of 25%. Since the risk of the owner is not covered under the policy with whom the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company of the Truck is also not liable for the payment of 25%. Supporting the submission of Mr. Mehta, he submitted that the tort feasor cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In relation to terms and conditions of the policy, learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati submitted that in view of the decision of this court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Tulsiben Panalal Joshi reported in 2001(1) GLH 237 , placing the policy on record is not required mandatorily. Referring to para-10 of the judgment, he submitted that once insurance company of the Metador has admitted that the aforesaid vehicle has been insured with it, the appellant is not required to prove insurance policy or to place copy of terms and conditions. As observed, it is matter of common knowledge that original policy is handed over to the owner of the vehicle. As observed, it is matter of common knowledge that original policy is handed over to the owner of the vehicle. Referring to the claim petition, he submitted that original claimant in claim petition has admitted that by running the Metador, the owner of the Metador used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and from that, an amount of Rs.6,000/-, the loan amount was paid and therefore, now it is not open for the original claimant of owner of the Metador to go beyond its claim petition, particularly when they failed in producing the income proof. Referring to the findings of the Tribunal, he further submitted that the tribunal took cognizance of the fact that original claimants failed in producing the income proof as also, there was no evidence produced in relation to his running the Metador as transport vehicle. In relation to submission of Mr.Hakin that insurance company of the Metador is to identify the claim of original claimant irrespective of negligence of the driver, Mr.Mehta submitted that as held in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meera Bai and others reported in (2006)9 SCC 174 , since the risk of the owner was not covered in the policy, original claimants are not entitled for the compensation claimed. It is apt to produce Para-4 of the aforesaid decision as under: “4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the insurance policy does cover the risk to the driver of the vehicle and drew our attention to the insurance schedule. We find that the schedule covers the “paid driver and/or conductor”. Obviously, the owner, who is himself driving the vehicle, is not covered under the policy. In this view of the matter, this appeal has to be allowed.” The decision relied upon by Mr.Nanavati was sought to be distinguished by Mr.Hakim, Ld. Advocate on facts that it was not the case of commercial passenger service vehicle. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is noticed that the owner of Metador was travelling in a vehicle in his capacity as owner. Further from the perusal of the policy, it is also noticed that no extra premium was paid covering the risk of the owner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Devi and others (supra) has held as under : “7. Further from the perusal of the policy, it is also noticed that no extra premium was paid covering the risk of the owner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Devi and others (supra) has held as under : “7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle.” Further in the decision of Jhuma Saha (SMT) and others (supra), it is held as under : “13. The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case.” This Court in First Appeal No.1601 of 2010, has held as under: “7. … Considering the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed hereinabove and considering the terms of insurance policy with regard to the personal accident cover for owner / driver, the appellant – Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation only for the items which are covered under clause of the policy. However, such liability would be limited to the extent to which the risk is covered by the policy. We find that the Tribunal has not examined this issue and granted compensation. However, the appellant would be liable to pay compensation only to the extent as stated in the policy i.e. upto Rs.2,00,000/- because of personal accident cover of the claimant as owner of the vehicle. We find that the Tribunal has not examined this issue and granted compensation. However, the appellant would be liable to pay compensation only to the extent as stated in the policy i.e. upto Rs.2,00,000/- because of personal accident cover of the claimant as owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the claimant as determined by the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act.” In the present case, as observed earlier, policy refers that no extra premium was paid covering the risk of death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in above decisions, in my opinion, Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability on the insurance company of Metador to the extent of 25%. Further, the decision relied upon by Ld. Advocate Mr. Hakim in case of Vijyagauri (Supra) is not applicable in facts of the present case, as in this case it is not borne out from the record that the deceased was travelling as passenger in the capacity as an owner in the said vehicle. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is compensation of Rs.11,05,000/-, 25% of Rs.11,05,000/- is to be reduced. The appeal of the insurance company of Metador is therefore allowed. Further, the insurance company of truck also cannot be fastened with the liability of 25% since it is not liable for the tortuous liability of driver of the Metador. In this case the deceased was travelling in the Metador as owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in my opinion the Tribunal is in error in fastening with the liability of 25%, on insurance company of truck by holding them jointly and severally liable. Thus, the amount of compensation i.e. 25% cannot be fasten on insurance company of truck and to that extent, the appeal filed by the insurance company of the truck is allowed. As noticed earlier the insurance company of Metador has deposited the amount of 25% (the liability fastened on it). If any amount is disbursed to the claimants then the said amount shall not be recovered from the original claimants. The balance amount (out of 25% deposited by the insurance company of Metador) is to be refunded to the appellant herein within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any amount is disbursed to the claimants then the said amount shall not be recovered from the original claimants. The balance amount (out of 25% deposited by the insurance company of Metador) is to be refunded to the appellant herein within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In relation to Cross Objection No.162 of 2007 filed by legal heirs of owner of Metador seeking enhancement of compensation, it is noticed that Tribunal in absence of any income proof, considered the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Reliance placed by learned advocate for original claimants in MACP No.1786 of 1999 on installment paid towards loan taken of Rs.2,25,000/-, in my opinion, cannot be the ground for enhancement. Considering the nature of work owner of the vehicle was doing and economic conditions prevailing in the year of accident, in my opinion, Rs.6,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is appropriate and no interference is required. Therefore, Cross Objection No.162 of 2007 is dismissed. IV. First Appeal No.1288 of 2007 with Cross Objections 163 of 2007 (arising out of MACP No.1502 of 2000) This appeal is filed by Insurance Company of truck, against the amount awarded towards damage to Metador, whereas Cross Objection No.163 of 2007 is filed seeking enhancement in the claim for damage caused to the Metador. Appearing for the appellant, the Insurance Company of Truck, Mr. Nanavati submitted that the Tribunal is in error in awarding amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards damage caused to the Metador. He submitted that since the Tribunal has held the driver of the Metador negligent to the extent of 25%, therefore, the said liability is to be reduced from the amount of compensation awarded towards damage of Metador. For the amount awarded for damage to vehicle, he submitted that the Tribunal considered the best price as the owner of the Metador has purchased the second hand vehicle in the year 1998. On the other hand, supporting Cross Objections, Mr. Hakim submitted that the deceased owner purchased the Metador for Rs.2,25,000/- and as per the insurance policy, the Metador was of Rs.2,00,000/-. If the depreciation is deducted the said amount is required to be enhanced. Further, the insurance was taken by the owner of the Metador two months prior to the date of accident and, therefore, even if the depreciated value of the Metador is taken into consideration, the same requires enhancement. If the depreciation is deducted the said amount is required to be enhanced. Further, the insurance was taken by the owner of the Metador two months prior to the date of accident and, therefore, even if the depreciated value of the Metador is taken into consideration, the same requires enhancement. He thus submitted to allow his Cross Objection and reject the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it is noticed that Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards damage caused to the Metador. Though driver of the Metador was held negligent to the extent of 25%, in my opinion, amount of compensation awarded towards damage caused to the Metador is quite reasonable and requires no interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company of the truck against the amount awarded towards damage caused to the Metador, is dismissed. Further since the Tribunal has appropriately considered depreciated value of second hand vehicle, I could not see any error in the findings of the Tribunal. Hence, First Appeal No.1288 of 2007 and Cross Objection No.163 of 2007 are dismissed. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, following order is passed: (i) First Appeal No.1285 of 2007 is partly allowed. The Appellant insurance company of truck is entitled for refund of Rs.2,45,000/-, [Rs. 2,95,000/ - Rs. 50,000/] with interest accrued thereon. The balance amount of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest accrued thereon is to be refunded to the Insurance Company of truck within four weeks from the copy of this order. (ii) First Appeal No.1286 of 2007 is disposed of as not pressed. (iii) First Appeal No.1287 of 2007 is partly allowed to the extent that for the negligence of driver of Metador (25%), the insurance company of truck cannot be held jointly and severely liable and liability cannot be fasten on it. There cannot be shifting of any liability to the extent of 25% to the insurance company of truck. (iv) First Appeal No.1288 of 2007 is dismissed. (v) First Appeal No.4799 of 2007 is allowed by holding that the Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability to the extent of 25% to the insurance company of Metador as no extra premium was paid covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle. (iv) First Appeal No.1288 of 2007 is dismissed. (v) First Appeal No.4799 of 2007 is allowed by holding that the Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability to the extent of 25% to the insurance company of Metador as no extra premium was paid covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle. However, since the amount to the extent of 25% has been deposited by the insurance company of Metador and as directed in clause 8 of the award if it has been disbursed, then the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants. Rest of the amount if any lying, as directed by the Tribunal with the registry, shall be refunded to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (vi) Cross Objection No.162 of 2009 (in First Appeal No.1287 of 2007) is dismissed as no case is made out for enhancement. (vii) Cross Objection No.163 of 2009 (in First Appeal No.1288 of 2007) is dismissed as no case is made out for interference. 7. Civil Applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.