ORDER : Since both these appeals arise out of the same award dated 24.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, (for short “Tribunal”) District Korba in Claim Case No. 158/2014, they are being decided by a common order. 2. MAC No. 146/2017 appeal has been filed by the United India Insur-ance Company whereas the other one being MAC No. 194/2017 has been filed by the claimants. As per the pleadings made in the Claim Application, on 27.02.2014 deceased Ramkumar aged about 21 years was going home from Katghora along with his friend on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-EL-9860, near Podi Uproda the truck bearing registration No. CG-07-CA-3798 driven and owned by respondent Vijay Lohar rashly and negligently came from opposite direction and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result of this accident, Ramkumar fell down and received grievous injuries on the head, hand, leg and other parts of the body, and while being taken to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. His motorcycle was also damaged. On matter being reported, Crime No. 30/2014 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC. The offending vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Com-pany Limited. Amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 47,10,000/- and the annual income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claim was resisted by the Insurer on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence and that the offending vehicle was driven without valid permit and that the amount claimed is highly exaggerated and therefore it may be exonerated of its liability. Learned Tribunal on the basis of these pleadings framed as many as five issues. First three issues pertaining to valid and effective driving licence with the driver of the offending vehicle; that of said vehicle being insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited; and that of offending vehicle being driven by its driver rashly and negligently causing death of the deceased, were answered in affirmative. Further, while deciding issue Nos. 4 and 5 learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,57,000/- in favour of the claimants. 3. While assailing the award impugned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal fastening the liability on it is erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. Further, while deciding issue Nos. 4 and 5 learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,57,000/- in favour of the claimants. 3. While assailing the award impugned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal fastening the liability on it is erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. He further submits that from the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company it is established that there was no valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle. He further submits that though no issue has been framed in this regard yet the pleading was there on its behalf to that effect. He submits that the criminal papers which have been exhibited by the claimants would indicate that driver of the offending vehicle was also chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 56/190 and 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) Act which clearly shows that there was no permit or fit-ness of the vehicle. He further submits that even otherwise nothing has been brought on record to indicate whether there was any valid permit or fitness on the date of accident and that even the amount of compensation is highly ex-cessive. He submits that the claimants are the sisters of the deceased and therefore they are not entitled to receive any compensation. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao and others (2004) 8 SCC 517 and Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and judgment of this Court dated 14.05.2019 passed in MAC No. 1206/2013. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants however submits that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and his income was taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He further submits that as even the future prospect of the deceased has not been considered, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants however submits that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and his income was taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He further submits that as even the future prospect of the deceased has not been considered, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. So far as the factum of dependency is concerned, it is argued that the claimants are sisters of the de-ceased who had already lost their parents and therefore they were dependent on the income of the deceased, and being so they full fall within the definition of legal representative and for that the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act is duly maintainable. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and an-other reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234 . He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Mamta Bai Rajak and others v. Vijay Kumar Kashyap and others reported in 2020 (1) CGLJ 334. 5. Heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The first point to be considered is whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in their favour? As submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, since the claimants were not dependent on the deceased, they are not entitled to receive any compensation. In this regard, this Court has perused the record and also the statements of the witnesses and it is clear from the perusal of the same that they were dependent on the income of the deceased and being the Legal Representatives they are entitled to get compensation and also for the enhancement. Further, on the date of accident i.e. 27.07.2014 learned Tribunal found the income of the deceased to be Rs.4000/- per month but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the minimum wages prevailing on that day, this Court has no hesitation to say that his income should be assessed at Rs. 5,500/- per month. Further, on the date of accident i.e. 27.07.2014 learned Tribunal found the income of the deceased to be Rs.4000/- per month but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the minimum wages prevailing on that day, this Court has no hesitation to say that his income should be assessed at Rs. 5,500/- per month. As he was aged about 25 years on that the date of accident, the future prospect should be taken as 40% in the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 7. Thus the computation of income would be Rs. 5,500/- per month and the annual being 66,000/-. Being bachelor, as per the legal position holding the ground today he was spending one half on himself and the remaining half on the claimants which comes to Rs. 33,000/- per annum. If 40% of the same is taken towards future prospects the total annual income comes to Rs. 46,200/- and applying the multiplier of 18 looking to his age i.e. 25 years at the relevant time, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,31,600/-. This apart, Rs. 30,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- each for filial consortium in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanuram Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Doing so the total compensation amount for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 9,81,600/-. Held accordingly. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,57,000/-and after subtracting the same, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,24,600/- for which the claimants are entitled to receive. 8. Now as regards the point whether the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. From the evidence on record it is apparent that the insurance has examined one witness namely Vinay Kohli – NAW-2/1 – Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Korba who has stated that on the date of accident the offending vehicle did not have the fitness and permit. Apart from this, perusal of the criminal papers exhibited by the claimants shows that respondent No.1 was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 56/190 and 66/192 of the MV Act. Ltd. Korba who has stated that on the date of accident the offending vehicle did not have the fitness and permit. Apart from this, perusal of the criminal papers exhibited by the claimants shows that respondent No.1 was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 56/190 and 66/192 of the MV Act. Seizure memo also does not indicate that any permit or fitness certificate was seized. In these circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Challa Upendra Rao (supra) and Amrit Paul (supra), the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and is exonerated from such liability. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. It shall however be at liberty to recover the amount from the owner. For the purpose of recovering the amount from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court concerned as if the dispute between the owner and the insurer was the subject matter of de-termination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within sixty days with interest @ 6% from the date of claim application till actual payment. 9. Appeals are thus allowed part with the observations made here-in-above. Rest of the conditions with regard to apportionment and disbursement in the award shall remain intact.