JUDGMENT/ORDER T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J. - In M.F.A.No.201512/2018 and M.F.A.No. 201513/2018, the Insurance Company and in M.F.A.No.201847/2018 and M.F.A.No.201839/2018, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dtd. 30/6/2018 passed in M.V.C.No.757/2015 and M.V.C.No.758/2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijaypur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). 2. The parties will be referred with respect to their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 are the children of one Sayedsab Makandar, deceased No.1 and the petitioners in M.V.C.No.758/2015 are the wife and son of Basvantharaigouda Patil, deceased No.2. Both the deceased while traveling from Mumbai to Shorapur in an Ambassador car bearing No.MYR-599 were killed at the spot when their vehicle met with an accident that took place at a place, which was at a distance of 4 Kms. from Theur Fata in Maharashtra State. 4. The petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking compensation. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the grounds that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation and there was no insurance coverage for the car in question. The Tribunal ignored the contention of the Insurance Company and assessed the compensation at Rs.1, 92, 000.00 in M.V.C.No.757/2015 and Rs.3, 76, 000.00 in M.V.C.No.758/2015 and fastened the liability against the Insurance Company. In both cases, the Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment and the petitioners in both cases are before this court seeking enhancement. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased in both cases were earning more than Rs.8, 000.00 per month, but the Tribunal did not consider it, the compensation to be awarded on conventional heads are assessed on the lower side and hence, they sought for enhancement. In order to answer the liability of the Insurance Company, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhannalal -vs- D.P.Vijayvargiya and others - (1996) 4 SCC 652 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the accident took place on 6/2/1989 and the claim petitions were filed in the year 2015 after an inordinate delay of 26 years. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the accident took place on 6/2/1989 and the claim petitions were filed in the year 2015 after an inordinate delay of 26 years. On the date of the accident, the applicable law for claiming of compensation was Sec. 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where the period of limitation was fixed as six months from the date of accident and therefore, claim petitions were time barred. It is also contended that the car was not insured, the policy of insurance produced pertains to insurance coverage provided to a goods vehicle and therefore, fastening of liability on the Insurance Company is erroneous. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Purohit and Company -vs- Khatoonbee and Another - (2017) 4 SCC 783 . 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 8. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, the undisputed facts are that the accident took place on 6/2/1989 when both the deceased were travelling as passengers in the car, met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 are the sons of deceased No.1 whereas the petitioners in M.V.C.No.758/2015 are the wife and son of deceased No.2. Both the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation. 9. The Tribunal considered the income at Rs.3, 000.00 per month, calculated the loss of dependency. 30% of the same is awarded as loss of estate in favour of the petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 as they are the major sons and not the dependants of deceased No.1, relying on the judgment in the case of A.Manavalagan -vs- A.Krishnamurthy and others - ILR 2004 KAR 3268. 10. As we notice from the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, the Tribunal did consider the claim on the date of filing though the accident was in the year 1989. In the year 1989, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 were aged 6 and 2 years, though were minors on the date of accident, they are certainly the dependants and therefore, the assessment of 30% loss of estate by the Tribunal is not proper. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the assessment of compensation towards loss of dependency for the said petitioners also. 11. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the assessment of compensation towards loss of dependency for the said petitioners also. 11. As we notice that in the year 1989, earning capacity of a person of this nature will not be less than Rs.50.00 per day and income ought to have been taken at Rs.1, 500.00 per month. For assessing the loss of dependency, if it is taken into consideration, the deceased No.1 was aged 40 years, the multiplier applicable is 15' whereas, the deceased No.2 was aged 45 years, for his age, the multiplier applicable is 14'. 12. Keeping all these aspects into consideration, if we assess the compensation in M.V.C.No.757/2015, the compensation will come at Rs.50.00x30 = Rs.1, 500.00, out of which, if 1/3rd is deducted towards persona expenses, it comes to Rs.1, 000.00, if 30% future prospects is added it comes to Rs.1, 300.00, then the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.2, 34, 000.00 (Rs.1, 300.00x12x15 multiplier). 13. Towards loss of love and affection, if Rs.20, 000.00 is assessed and towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.3, 000.00 each is assessed, then the compensation comes to Rs.2, 60, 000.00 as against Rs.1, 92, 000.00 assessed by the Tribunal. 14. In respect of deceased No.2 in M.V.C.No.758/2015 is concerned, if income is taken at Rs.50.00 per day, it comes to Rs.1, 500.00 per month, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.1, 000.00. If 30% future prospects is added, it comes to Rs.1, 300.00. The multiplier applicable is 14'. Then the compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.2, 18, 400.00 (Rs.1, 300.00x12x14). 15. If Rs.10, 000.00 each is awarded towards loss of love and affection to the petitioners, it comes to Rs.20, 000.00, loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.3, 000.00 each is added, it comes to Rs.2, 44, 400.00 as against Rs.3, 76, 000.00 as assessed by the Tribunal. If the claim petition is to be allowed, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation accordingly. 16. Now, insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company that the car was not insured with, the copy of the insurance policy is produced, its recitals show that policy was in force from 16/10/1988 to 15/10/1989 issued in respect of Ambassador car bearing No.MYR-599. 16. Now, insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company that the car was not insured with, the copy of the insurance policy is produced, its recitals show that policy was in force from 16/10/1988 to 15/10/1989 issued in respect of Ambassador car bearing No.MYR-599. The Insurance Company though contended that this insurance policy was issued in respect of a goods vehicle, we do not find any contrary material. The contention of the Insurance Company thereby answered that on the date of accident, the car was covered with insurance. 17. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding inordinate delay in filing the claim petitions, we have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhannalal (supra). In this judgment, it was held that inspite of the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, the period of limitation will not be applicable and therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the claim can be made irrespective of the point of limitation by virtue of the amendment to Sec. 166(3) of the M.V.Act, which came into force w.e.f. 14/11/1994. 18. We have carefully perused the judgment in Purohit and Company (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished the judgment in Dhannalal (supra) at para-15 of its judgment, which reads thus: "15. . . . . . . We say so, because in Dhannalal case, the question of inordinate delay in approaching the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, was not considered........." The Hon'ble Apex Court further referred to the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and has made an elaborate discussion at paragraphs-16, 17 and 18, which read thus: "16. The question of reasonability would naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. We are however, satisfied, that a delay of 28 years, even without reference to any other fact, cannot be considered as a prima facie reasonable period, for approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The only justification indicated by the respondents, for initiating proceedings after a lapse of 28 years, emerges from paragraph 4, contained in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the claimants, before the Tribunal. Paragraph 4 aforementioned is extracted hereunder: "4. That the Petitioners are poor person and they have no knowledge about the Law. The only justification indicated by the respondents, for initiating proceedings after a lapse of 28 years, emerges from paragraph 4, contained in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the claimants, before the Tribunal. Paragraph 4 aforementioned is extracted hereunder: "4. That the Petitioners are poor person and they have no knowledge about the Law. Also the Respondent has not pay the single pie towards any compensation." 17. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the justification expressed at the behest of the respondents, for approaching the Tribunal, after a period of 28 years, we are of the view, that the explanation tendered, cannot be accepted. Undoubtedly, the claim (pertaining to an accident which had occurred on 2/2/1977), in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, was stale, and ought to have been treated as a dead claim, at the point of time, when the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing a claim petition, on 23/2/2005. 18. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, we hereby set aside the impugned order dtd. 7/7/2015, and allow the instant appeal, by holding, that the claim raised by the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was not a surviving claim, when the respondents approached the said Tribunal." 19. In the case on hand, delay was more than 26 years whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the case where the claim was made for the year 2005 in respect of the accident that took place in the year 1977 i.e., 28 years after the accident. It was held that such claim would not survive for consideration. In view of the law being settled and the claim of both the petitioners is time-barred and it is not a surviving claim when they approached the Tribunal in the year 2015. Hence, the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is not proper, it is erroneous and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation 26 years after the date of accident. Hence, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company deserve to be allowed and the appeals filed by the petitioners deserve to the dismissed and the claim petitions before the Tribunal are required to be dismissed as time barred. In the result, we pass the following order: M.F.A.Nos.201839/2018 and 201847/2018 filed by the petitioners are dismissed. M.F.A.Nos.201512/2018 and 201513/2018 filed by the Insurance Company are hereby allowed. In the result, we pass the following order: M.F.A.Nos.201839/2018 and 201847/2018 filed by the petitioners are dismissed. M.F.A.Nos.201512/2018 and 201513/2018 filed by the Insurance Company are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and award dtd. 30/6/2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.757/2015 and M.V.C.No.758/2015 are hereby set aside. The claim petitions filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal stand dismissed. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal.