JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal against the award dated 30.07.2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) in a claim petition titled “Tahira Parveen and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others” whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 25,87,000/- along with interest pendent elite and future at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum till its realization. Simultaneously, it is ordered that in the event the award amount is not deposited within the period of 30 days, then the awarded amount shall carry future interest @ 10% per annum. 2. The appellant Insurance Company has impugned the award on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is not at all liable to satisfy the award. It is further stated by the Appellant that the mere observation in the charge-sheet that the deceased was returning from duty would not mean that the deceased was authorized to travel illegally in the goods carrying vehicle and perusal of the post mortem report shows that the deceased was wearing black shoes, blue jeans, black jersey and black leather jacket at the time of accident, therefore, from the clothes of the deceased it could not be inferred that the deceased had boarded the truck in question while performing his duty as a traffic constable. It is also urged by the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed an error while determining the loss of dependency by deducting 1/4thof the income of the deceased, as he was a bachelor. 3. Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that no evidence was led by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to prove that the deceased was on duty while travelling in the offending vehicle and the learned Tribunal just by placing reliance upon the Police report fixed the liability upon the appellant Insurance company, when even in the post mortem report it was mentioned that the deceased was not in his uniform. 4. Mr. M. R. Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4. Mr. M. R. Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation, as the deceased was returning from his duty so there is no illegality in it. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased-Mohsin Choudhary and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who are the siblings of the deceased-Mohsin Choudhary filed the claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of Mohsin Choudhary in an accident that took place on 10.11.2009. The appellant Insurance Company filed its response, wherein a specific plea was taken that the deceased was travelling in the goods carrying vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company, however, admitted the insurance of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 did not choose to contest the petition and as such, they were set ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether an accident took place on 10.11.2009 at Kothari (National Highway 1-A) by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. JKS-9190 by its driver, as a result of which deceased Mohsin Chowdhary received fatal injuries? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance policy and insurance company is not liable? OPR-1 7. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 examined respondent No. 1-Tahira Parveen and Vijay Kumar as witnesses in support of their case. Respondent No. 1 stated that her son died in a road accident on 10.11.2009. She further stated that he was working in Police Department. RW-Vijay Kumar proved the salary of the deceased as Rs. 12,528/ per month. 8. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 examined respondent No. 1-Tahira Parveen and Vijay Kumar as witnesses in support of their case. Respondent No. 1 stated that her son died in a road accident on 10.11.2009. She further stated that he was working in Police Department. RW-Vijay Kumar proved the salary of the deceased as Rs. 12,528/ per month. 8. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and as such no liability to satisfy the award can be placed upon the appellant, it would be appropriate to take note of Rule 113 of the J&K Motor Vehicle Rules, which is reproduced as under: “113. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle: Provided that, the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicles carried free of charge or a Police officer in uniform travelling on duty, may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried.- (i) In light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 980 kgs be not more than one. (ii) In any other light transport goods vehicle, not more than three. (iii) In any goods vehicle other than light transport vehicle, not more than seven: Provided further that the provisions of sub-clauses.....” 9. In terms of Rule 113 of J&K Motor Vehicle Rules, a Police Officer in uniform can travel in a goods vehicle while being on duty. A perusal of the charge-sheet annexed with the petition reveals that the Investigating Officer had arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was working in traffic wing of the Police and in connection with one enquiry, the deceased had gone to Doda and while returning from Doda, he boarded a vehicle at Bye Pass Road, Batote for onward journey to Udhampur, but the vehicle met with an accident resulting into death of the victim-Mohsin Choudhary. 10. In Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 , the Hon”ble Apex Court has held as under: “26. 10. In Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 , the Hon”ble Apex Court has held as under: “26. In the above conspectus, the appellant is justified in contending that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the holistic view of the Tribunal in reference to the statements of witnesses forming part of the charge-sheet, FIR, jeep seizure report in particular, to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 driven by Respondent 2 was involved in the accident in question. Indeed, the High Court was impressed by the mechanical investigation report (Ext. 5) which stated that only a scratch mark on the mudguard of the left tyre of the vehicle had been noted. On that basis, it proceeded to observe that the same was in contradiction to the claim of the appellant claimant, ruling out the possibility of involvement of the vehicle in the accident. This conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures and also in disregard of the relevant fact that the vehicle was seized by the police after investigation, only after one month from the date of the accident and the possibility of the same having been repaired in the meantime could not be ruled out. In other words, the reasons which weighed with the High Court for reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal upon holistic analysis of the entire evidence, about the involvement of Jeep No. RST 4701 in the accident, cannot be countenanced. For, those reasons do not affect the other overwhelming circumstances and evidence which has come on record and commended to the Tribunal about the involvement of the subject jeep in the accident in question. This being the main edifice, for which the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Respondents 2 & 3, it must necessarily follow that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of involvement of Jeep No. RST 4701 in the accident in question will have to be restored for reasons noted hitherto.” (emphasis added) 11. This being the main edifice, for which the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Respondents 2 & 3, it must necessarily follow that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of involvement of Jeep No. RST 4701 in the accident in question will have to be restored for reasons noted hitherto.” (emphasis added) 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled, Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 486 has held as under: “It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of the motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” Emphasis added. 12. No doubt there is no pleading in the petition that the deceased was travelling in a vehicle while being on duty, but the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet has specifically mentioned that the deceased met with an accident while he was coming from Doda in connection with some enquiry. The contention of Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant that in the post mortem report the deceased was found to be wearing blue jeans and black jacket would not be of much significance as the accident took place during winters and the IO has arrived at the conclusion that the deceased had gone for enquiry and was returning back when the vehicle met with an accident, as such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding returned by the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 113 (Supra), the deceased was entitled to travel in the goods vehicle. As such, this contention raised by the appellant is rejected. 13. The other issue that has been raised by the appellant is in respect of the compensation payable by the appellant, determined by the Tribunal. The learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. As such, this contention raised by the appellant is rejected. 13. The other issue that has been raised by the appellant is in respect of the compensation payable by the appellant, determined by the Tribunal. The learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 25,87,000/- in the following manner: (i) Loss of Dependence Rs. 25,57,000/- (ii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 25,87,000/- (Twenty five lacs and eighty seven thousand rupees only) 14. From the record, it is evident that the deceased was working as Constable and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 12,528/-. The deceased was 28 years of age. Thus, as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 17 was applicable which has been applied by the learned Tribunal. As the deceased was below 40 years of age and was in Government Employment, so the monthly income of the deceased was required to be enhanced by 50 percent, taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased[See “National Insurance company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. As the deceased was a bachelor, so 50 percent of the monthly income was required to be deducted from the earnings of the deceased on account of personal expenses, whereas the Tribunal has wrongly deducted one third of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses. It needs to be mentioned that the father of the deceased was SSP in Police Department and was posted as Staff Officer to IGP, as is averred in the charge-sheet relied upon by the claimants. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 19,16,784/-. Further from the record this Court finds that no compensation on account of loss of consortium has been awarded to the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each is awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of loss of filial consortium. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- as “Funeral Expenses” instead of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded under the head of “Loss of Estate” instead of Rs. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each is awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of loss of filial consortium. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- as “Funeral Expenses” instead of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded under the head of “Loss of Estate” instead of Rs. 15,000/-.Further this court finds that the Tribunal has directed that in the event award is not satisfied within 30 days, the same be recovered along with interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum. The said condition could not have been imposed, once the tribunal had granted interest pendentelite and future @ 7.5 % per annum. As such the said condition is deleted. 15. Accordingly the compensation payable to the respondents is modified as under: (i) Loss of Dependency Rs. 19,16,784/- (ii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (iv) Loss of Filial Consortium Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 20,26,784/- (Twenty Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four Only) 16. The award passed by the tribunal is modified accordingly. The interest component shall remain the same. An amount of Rs. 20,26,784/- be released in favour of the claimants/respondents in manner prescribed in the award after deducting the amount already released in their favour and after their due identification by their counsel. The balance amount be released in favour of the Insurance Company. 17. Record of the Tribunal be sent back. 18. Disposed of.