JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. These two misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants being SBCMA No.533/2022 for enhancement of the compensation and the connected appeal has been filed by appellant/non-claimant No.3 being SBCMA No.844/2002 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 29.04.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.505/1996, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,24,000/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,96,680/-on account of death of Sh. Nalin Chobisa, who lost his life while he was travelling in a Bus DL-1P-7143 and the said bus met with an accident. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 20.04.1996 Sh. Nalin Chhobisa (deceased) was travelling in the bus DL 1P 7143 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). At about 6.35 am near Minir Bus Stand, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, as he was getting down from the bus, the driver of the above bus started the bus, thereby he fell down and came under wheel and died on spot. The claimants further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. It was further alleged that the deceased was employed as Senior Accountant in M/s Peacock Industries and he was earning Rs.3045/- per month. 3. On receipt of the summons of the claim petition, the non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their reply jointly, whereas non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company filed its separate reply while denying the facts averred in the claim petition and prayer for rejection of claim petition was made. The non-claimant No.3-insurance company alleged before the learned Tribunal that the owner of the bus (respondent No.5 herein), was known to the Branch Manager of the insurance company-Dr. Gajendra Singh and on 20.03.1996 the former contacted the latter for insurance of his bus. The owner asked Branch Manager to give the cover note to one Surendra Kumar. Thereafter, the Cover Note No. 543675 (hereinafter referred to as “Cover note-1”), exhibited as NA-1 and of amount Rs.12604/-, was issued at 10:00 AM and was handed over to Surendra Kumar at 10:15 AM. However, as the payment was not received till evening the said Cover note was cancelled. Thereafter, the Cover Note No. 543675 (hereinafter referred to as “Cover note-1”), exhibited as NA-1 and of amount Rs.12604/-, was issued at 10:00 AM and was handed over to Surendra Kumar at 10:15 AM. However, as the payment was not received till evening the said Cover note was cancelled. Subsequently, someone came to deliver the Cheque No.319566 dated 20.03.1996 for payment of premium of Rs.13546/-and another Cover note bearing no. 543680 (hereinafter referred to as “Cover note-2”) carbon copy of which is exhibited as NA-3 for an amount Rs.13,546, was issued at 06.30 PM on the same day. 4. The non-claimant No.3 insurance company further contended before the learned tribunal that it received a Memorandum of Dishonour dated 06.04.1996 from Punjab National Bank for the cheque received as consideration for Cover note-2. Thereafter, a letter dated 25.04.1996 regarding dishonour of cheque and cancellation of Cover note-2 was sent to the owner of the bus. It was contended by the appellant-insurance company before the learned tribunal that the owner came on 24.04.1996 and requested for issuance of a Cover note from backdate of 4-5 days. As the said request of respondent no. 5 was refused he went to a different branch and took an insurance policy no. 030335 (Exhibited as NA-5) dated 26.04.1996 and also the Cover note No.0603086 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cover note-3’), exhibited as NA-4 for an amount of Rs. 12,028/-, and a policy was issued at 10 AM on 26.04.1996. Thus, it was contended by the appellant-insurance company before the learned tribunal that the said vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident hence, appellant-insurance company was not liable. 5. On the contrary, it was submitted by the non-claimant No.2 (respondent No.5 in CMA No.844/2002) before the learned tribunal that on the evening of 19.03.1996 he gave Rs. 12,604/-in cash to the Branch Manager (Mr. Gajendra Singh) of the insurance company and received Cover note-1. The non-claimant No.2 also submitted before the learned tribunal that he has not received any other Cover note. It was further stated by the non-claimant No.2 that he has neither filled any proposal form, nor has taken or received any insurance policy (Ex.NA-5) from another branch, and that he has neither given any cheque nor received any notice of cancellation of cover note, as well as any registered notice from the appellant. 6. It was further stated by the non-claimant No.2 that he has neither filled any proposal form, nor has taken or received any insurance policy (Ex.NA-5) from another branch, and that he has neither given any cheque nor received any notice of cancellation of cover note, as well as any registered notice from the appellant. 6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following four issues including relief: 7. In support of their claim, the claimants examined one witness AW.1 Jyoti and 26 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants NAW.1 Surendra Kumar, NAW.2 Gajendra and NAW.3 Chandra Singh were examined and documents NA/1 to NA/ 5 were exhibited. 8. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering record of the case decided issue Nos.2 & 3 against the appellant-insurance company vide judgment and award dated 29.04.2002 and awarded Rs. 3,24,400/-in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of accident, whereas the deceased was 28 years of age and thus the multiplier of 12 applied by the learned Tribunal is not correct and the same ought to have been 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards future prospects and thus looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 28 years, 40% ought to have been awarded towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-only, which also deserves to be suitably enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium, love and affection, which also deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma & Ors. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium, love and affection, which also deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma & Ors. : AIR 2012 SC 2817 and submits that even after dishonour of the cheque issued in respect to premium of the policy, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to satisfy the claim, however, the insurance company was granted liberty to first pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the insured. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the non-claimant No.3-insurance company submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the material fact that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. It is further submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company that the Cover note-1 was issued for the bus on 20.03.1996 but was cancelled on the same date as payment was not received. He also submitted that thereafter on the same day at 6.30 PM, Cover note-2 was issued but as the cheque received for the payment of same was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund, the said Cover note was also cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that the learned tribunal also did not consider the fact that the owner of the said vehicle obtained Cover note-3 on 26.04.1996 for the said bus (DL1P7143). 12. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of non-claimant No.2/owner that on the evening of 19.03.1996, the non-claimant No.2 paid Rs. 12604/-to Gajendra Singh (Branch Manager of the Appellant-insurance Company) in cash and received Cover note-1. He also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has never received any registered notice from the appellant-insurance company for cancellation of Cover note-1. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of non-claimant No.2 that he has not taken the said insurance policy and has also not filled any proposal form. He also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has never received any registered notice from the appellant-insurance company for cancellation of Cover note-1. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of non-claimant No.2 that he has not taken the said insurance policy and has also not filled any proposal form. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of non-claimant No.2/owner that he has not given any cheque and has also not received any notice intimating cancellation of the Cover note nor any letter informing about the dishonour of cheque from the appellant-insurance company. 13. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at bar. 14. The question that falls for adjudication before this Court is whether a valid insurance policy was in existence at the time of accident? 15. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the insurance company, this Court is unable to believe that the non-claimant No.3/insurance company issued Cover Note No. 543675 (Cover note-1) dated 20.03.1996 and handed it over to the non-claimant No.2/owner even though no payment was made, merely on the assurance of the owner that he will make the payment. Further, there is nothing as such noted on the said Cover Note-1 which shows that the payment is due. Moreover, there is no document on record to show that intimation of cancellation of Cover note-1 was given to non-claimant No.2/owner. Thus, the contention of the non-claimant No.2/owner that he paid an amount of Rs. 12,604 in cash for Cover Note No. 543675 (Cover note-1) is having force. Now coming to controversy with respect to Cover Note No. 543680 (Cover Note-2) dated 20.03.1996 and Cover Note No. 0603086(Cover Note-3) Dated 26.04.1996, this court finds that as on the said Cover Note-2 there is no endorsement that the payment of the premium of Rs. 13,546/-was received by way of cheque, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company that a cheque was issued for the payment of Cover note-2, has no force and it cannot be believed that this Cover Note-2 was issued on the instruction of the non-claimant No.2/owner. 13,546/-was received by way of cheque, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company that a cheque was issued for the payment of Cover note-2, has no force and it cannot be believed that this Cover Note-2 was issued on the instruction of the non-claimant No.2/owner. Further, as contended by the non-claimant No.2/owner that he did not have any knowledge about Cover Note-2 as well as Cover Note-3, is having force as there was no reason for him to get a new cover note when he was not even knowing at that time about the cancellation of the Cover Note-1(Cover Note No. 543675), which was valid from 20.03.1996 to 19.03.1997, and for which he has paid in cash. Thus, this court finds no force in the contentions of insurance company. 17. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation towards the loss of income of the deceased/dependency has applied the multiplier of 12, whereas in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same ought to have been 16. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 , this Court is of the opinion the appellants/claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40%. This Court finds that the appellants/ claimants are entitled to receive enhanced compensation towards consortium/love and affection and funeral expenses. 18. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29.04.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC Case No.505/1996 is modified and the claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation as under: S. No. Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court 1. Compensation towards the loss of income after adding 40% future prospects 3045 x 12 x 16 = Rs.5,84,640/- 5,84,640 x 2/3 = Rs.3,89,760/- Plus 40% of 3,89,760/- = 1,55,904/- [3,89,760+1,55,904 = 5,45,664/-] Rs.3,02,400/- Rs.5,45,664/- 2. Lump sum compensation for physical and mental agony, transportation expenses etc. Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- 3. Loss of Consortium/love and affection (48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000) Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 5000 Rs. 18,000/- G. Total Rs.7,27,664/- Less Rs.3,24,400/- Total Rs.4,03,264/- 19. Lump sum compensation for physical and mental agony, transportation expenses etc. Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- 3. Loss of Consortium/love and affection (48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000) Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 5000 Rs. 18,000/- G. Total Rs.7,27,664/- Less Rs.3,24,400/- Total Rs.4,03,264/- 19. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,03,264/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The non-claimant No.3, insurance company, is accordingly directed to pay the said amount along with the interest from the date of passing of judgment and award to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the insurance company shall be at liberty to prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured. 20. In view of discussion in above paragraphs, this court finds no error in the findings given by the learned tribunal with respect to issue no. 2 & 3. It is also clear from the record that Cover note-1 was valid from 19.03.1996 to 19.03.1997. Therefore, an insurance policy was indeed in existence at the time of the accident. In view of the observations made by this court in the foregoing paragraphs the judgment and award dated 29.04.2002, passed by learned Tribunal in Case No. 505/96 is modified. 21. Accordingly, the misc. appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 533/2002) filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 844/2002) filed by the insurance company is dismissed.