JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Though served, the respondent No. 3 has failed to appear. 2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 472 of 2017. 3. The facts in brief, which give rise to the present Appeal are that the deceased, the husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2, was working as a Cleaner on Atul Shakti Tempo bearing Registration No. GJ-6-AW-2533. On 03.03.2017, the deceased was returning from Bodeli after unloading the goods. The said tempo was driven by the respondent No. 1 the deceased was riding in the tempo as he was the Cleaner. When they were passing through Pansholi Vasahat at about 8.00 pm, a Trailer bearing Registration No. GJ-12-Z-3464 was parked on the road by its driver, without any parking signals or reflectors. As the driver of the tempo could not see the trailer parked on the road on account of the focus of headlight of the oncoming vehicles, the tempo collided with the said trailer from behind and then dashed with the roadside railing. The deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. A complaint was registered with Dabhoi Police Station as I-C.R. No. 24 of 2017. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli), Wd/o. Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) and Others v. Kandla dock Labour Board and Another reported in 2021 I GLR 440 as also the definition of owner under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the Insurance Company on record at Exhibit 41 when has collected the compulsory personal accident cover qua the owner/driver or the same has been received by the Insurance Company, then it becomes the legal liability to be paid to the driver/cleaner. It is therefore, submitted that Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, i.e. the Insurance Company of the vehicle of the respondent driver/owner cannot deny the payment of the compensation amount. 5. The claimant has stated that the deceased was working as a cleaner on the said tempo and was drawing a monthly salary and daily allowances. He was aged 54 years at the time of accident. 5. The claimant has stated that the deceased was working as a cleaner on the said tempo and was drawing a monthly salary and daily allowances. He was aged 54 years at the time of accident. It is submitted that the evidence on record by the widow of the deceased, has been proved that the deceased was working as a cleaner on the vehicle and the accident occurred when the deceased was returning after unloading the goods. The vehicle was driven by the nephew-Mukesh who has been made a party respondent No. 1 and the second son of the deceased who is the respondent No. 2, is the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that it can never be assumed that the father would never work on the vehicle of the son as in a joint family, the male members would work in the family business and the amount as monthly salary and other expenses would be drawn and received from other family members of the family. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed in not appreciating the virtual owner of the tempo. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company had received the premium for the owner/driver/conductor and now it cannot disown itself from the liability of paying the amount even if the learned Tribunal has considered the deceased as virtual owner. It is also submitted that though the evidence has been given by the widow of the deceased, that the deceased was working as cleaner on the vehicle, which was being driven by the respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% of the award amount where the liability ought to have been only on the stationery trailer as it had been parked without any signal or indicator as the accident had occurred during the night hours. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% negligence of the trailer. However, it is submitted that the claimants do not desire to agitate the negligence aspect of the tempo driver where he has been attributed for being 50% negligent. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% negligence of the trailer. However, it is submitted that the claimants do not desire to agitate the negligence aspect of the tempo driver where he has been attributed for being 50% negligent. It is submitted that if there is negligence of the driver of tempo, by following the ratio in the case of Valiben (supra), the Insurance Company of the vehicle of the respondent No. 2 would be liable to pay the amount since the deceased was traveling as a cleaner and the same has been proved by way of evidence by the claimants. It is also submitted that if at all the learned Tribunal considers the deceased as a virtual owner, then such kind of ownership has not been defined under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the M.V. Act’) and even if the deceased is said to have stepped into the shoes of the owner, the premium for compulsory personal accident cover has been taken for the owner/driver. 6. In the case of Valiben (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issues urged, had framed the following question to be examined and answered by the Bench that: “Whether the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarmiya (supra) laid down correct law by holding that in view of insured paying additional premium for the liability of the paid driver, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act computed upon the death or injury caused to the driver out of an accident which arises solely on account of driver’s own negligence?” Thereafter, in Paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Valiben (supra), the Division Bench held as under: “13. Thus, when the owner of a vehicle pay additional premium and same is accepted by the Insurance Company, liability of the Insurance Company gets extended under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 147 of the Act clearly prescribes for statutory liability to cover risk of paid Driver and Conductor under the Insurance Policy, which is a matter of contract. On payment of such additional premium by the owner, the liability of the owner shifts upon the Insurance Company. Thus, the risk of paid Driver and Conductor would be covered under the Insurance Policy. On payment of such additional premium by the owner, the liability of the owner shifts upon the Insurance Company. Thus, the risk of paid Driver and Conductor would be covered under the Insurance Policy. Only when the additional premium is not paid, liability would be as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and in such cases, compensation would be computed as prescribed under the Act which is limited to the extent provided under provisions of the Act. However, when owner pays additional premium to cover the legal liability of his paid driver and conductor to the Insurance Company, as such, the Insurance Company is enlarging the scope for unlimited liability for payment of compensation, when additional premium is accepted. The liability of the Insurance Company gets extended and it has no right to raise issue of self negligence or otherwise of the such class of the driver of the Insured vehicle. By accepting additional premium as per the IMT 28, the Insurance Company expressed its willingness to extend its liability under the Clause of Legal Liability to the Paid driver and conductor as envisaged under Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in our opinion, Insurance Company has no legal right to avoid its legal liability under the indemnity clause arising from the contract of insurance towards the insured - owner of such classes of vehicles.” 6.1. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that definition of owner under Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the M.V. Act’) would be that person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered i.e. whose name is reflected in the records of Registering Authority and where a person is a minor, the guardian of that minor would be treated as owner and where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation or is under requisition, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement or under requisition is treated as owner. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the Insurance Company has not challenged any observations on the negligence aspect but learned Advocate took strong objection to the other contention of claimants. 8. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the Insurance Company has not challenged any observations on the negligence aspect but learned Advocate took strong objection to the other contention of claimants. 8. Having heard learned Advocate for the parties; perused the records of the case. The widow of the deceased-Sarojben Rameshbhai @ Rameshchandra Rana had been examined at Exhibit 28 who had filed the Affidavit for examination under Order 18 Rule 14 and in her deposition-in-chief and in the cross examination evidence regarding the accident was given by her. The Tempo bearing Registration No. GJ-6-AW-2533 is under the ownership of second son-the respondent No. 2 and at the time of accident, her nephew-Mukesh was driving and she confirms the fact during the cross examination of the Advocate of Reliance General Insurance Company that they were returning from Bodeli after unloading the goods. She also confirmed in the cross examination by respondent No. 3 that her husband was in the business of carrying goods and was returning back after unloading the goods. The accident occurred at 8.00 pm in the night. She has also confirmed that her husband was working as a cleaner on the said vehicle. The learned Tribunal has considered the deceased as a virtual owner, while Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act states that it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered would be treated as the 'owner'. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Exhibit 41 is the Policy document of the vehicle in the name of Rakeshbhai Rameshbhai Rana who is respondent No. 2, adult son of the deceased owner of the vehicle. The vehicle is stated to be registered in the name of the respondent No. 2 and the RTO document too at Exhibit 40 shows that the vehicle is in the name of Rakeshbhai Rameshbhai Rana. The learned Tribunal therefore, has erred in considering the deceased as a virtual owner of the vehicle. The vehicle is stated to be registered in the name of the respondent No. 2 and the RTO document too at Exhibit 40 shows that the vehicle is in the name of Rakeshbhai Rameshbhai Rana. The learned Tribunal therefore, has erred in considering the deceased as a virtual owner of the vehicle. Even if the said observation is to be accepted, then too the respondent No. 3 - Reliance General Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation, as claimant has a specific proof that her husband was traveling as cleaner on the vehicle and had gone for unloading the goods and while returning back to Bodeli, the accident had occurred. That very suggestion was put by Reliance General Insurance Company which has been confirmed by the claimant and since the deceased had been accepted as a conductor and/or cleaner as held in the case of Valiben (supra), the Insurance Company of the involved vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 3 would be liable to pay the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the respondent No. 3 by considering the deceased as a owner, it had been held that the claimants cannot claim any compensation for the negligence on the part of the tempo driver. 9. The learned Tribunal has considered equal negligence of both the drivers, i.e. the tempo and trailer. No has challenge has been given to the said observations. 10. Thus, in view of the proposition of law that has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben (supra) that the risk of driver and / or conductor and/or owner/driver has been covered by paying additional premium, the Insurance Company undertakes to protect the owner of the truck and risk of the driver/conductor gets covered under the Policy. Herein this case, an additional amount was taken from the owner as compulsory personal accident of owner/driver under Endorsement IMT 20,15,40,21,7 and the additional premium was also accepted for the driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner. The policy reflects that the premium payable is Rs.8,079/-. Thus, following the ratio as laid down in the case of Valiben (supra), the respondent No. 3-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited would be liable to pay for the deceased as a cleaner of the vehicle. The policy reflects that the premium payable is Rs.8,079/-. Thus, following the ratio as laid down in the case of Valiben (supra), the respondent No. 3-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited would be liable to pay for the deceased as a cleaner of the vehicle. Further, it is to be noted that the learned Tribunal deducted ½ of the amount as personal expenses while the deceased had two dependents, i.e. the widow and the son who are the claimants. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the amount. No challenge has been given to the income as assessed @ Rs.7,500/- per month; hence, the yearly income comes to Rs.90,000/-. Taking into consideration the age, 10% prospective rise in income has been assessed. Hence the income comes to Rs.99,000/- and the deduction for personal expenses ought to have considered @ one-third, thus considering the same Rs.33,000/- has been deducted. Applying the multiplier of 11 to Rs.66,000/-, the dependency loss would come to Rs.7,26,000/-. The consortium amount for the widow has been granted @ Rs.40,000/-. The funeral expenses and loss of estate has been rightly considered. 11. Thus, the computation can be made as under: Details Amount Dependency loss Rs. 7,26,000.00 Add: Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Add: Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Add: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 7,96,000.00 12. The respondent No. 3-Reliance General Insurance Company would be liable to pay 50% of the amount since the vehicle is insured in the name of the respondent No. 2 being the owner. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,07,250/- with rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum, which the respondent/s are liable to deposit in equal proportions, with the enhanced amount as Rs.4,88,750/- (Rs.7,96,000/- minus Rs.3,07,250/-). In the result, the present respondents are directed to deposit the amount within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 14. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 472 of 2017 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.