JUDGMENT : 1. The above titled appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgments/awards dated 21.07.2008 and 16.12.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 54 titled “Ishar Dass Gupta & Anr vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr” and in Claim Petition No. 56 titled “Rameshwar Dass Gupta & Ors vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr” respectively, arising out of the same accident involving the same offending vehicle. In view of the similar facts and circumstances with regard to the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and the insured and the insurer being same in both the judgments/awards, these appeals were clubbed together and are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A Goods vehicle (Tata Mobile) bearing registration No. JK02K-2112 met with an accident near Banote Nallah Prem Nagar Kishtwar on 27.06.2004 in which three persons got injured and a case was registered at Police Station Doda vide FIR No. 26/2004 for commission of offences punishable under sections 279/337 RPC; two of the occupants of the vehicle Rakesh Gupta and Madan Lal succumbed to their injuries and a charge sheet was laid down before the Court on conclusion of investigation for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304-A RPC. 3. The legal heirs of the deceased Rakesh Gupta and Madan Lal Gupta filed Claim Petitions under Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kishtwar (for short the Tribunal). In Claim Petition titled “Isher Dass Gupta & Ors vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr” (Claim No. 54/2004) for the death of deceased Madan Lal Gupta, an amount of Rs.10,81,200/- was awarded as compensation in their favour. The Tribunal had accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, after deducting one third of his income on personal expenses of the deceased and having regard to his age between 30 to 35 years with application of 17 as multiplier granted compensation in favour of the claimants. In the other case titled “Rameshwar Das Gupta & Ors vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr” (Claim No. 56/2004), the legal heirs of the deceased Rakesh Gupta were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs.4,89,506/- having regard to his annual income of Rs. In the other case titled “Rameshwar Das Gupta & Ors vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr” (Claim No. 56/2004), the legal heirs of the deceased Rakesh Gupta were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs.4,89,506/- having regard to his annual income of Rs. 40,000/- as the petition had been moved under 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, with application of multiplier of 18, having regard to his age of 30 years at the time of his death. 4. The appellants having been aggrieved of the impugned Awards, preferred the above titled appeals, assailing the awards on the grounds that the deceased had been travelling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers, as such, they were neither covered under the Insurance Policy nor were third party being occupants of the vehicle, as such, the Tribunal has mis-directed itself to saddle the liability upon the appellant-Insurer to indemnify insured owner for his vicarious and tortuous liability of the insured vehicle. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the multiplier has been wrongly applied in case of deceased Madan Lal Gupta as 18 instead of 17 for the age of 30 years of the deceased and 17 instead of 16 applied in the case of deceased Rakesh Gupta who was, of the age of 30-35 years. The appellants, besides having challenged the impugned awards on the point of quantum for applying wrong multiplier by the Tribunal, also challenged not deducting half of the income of one of the deceased who was a bachelor on his personal expenses for calculation of the quantum of compensation. 5. Pursuant to notice, claimants appeared through Mr. A A Hamal Advocate, whereas the other respondent despite service did not choose to contest these appeals and was proceeded ex parte. It would not be out of place to mention that other respondent had not contested the claim petition before the Tribunal as well. 6. 5. Pursuant to notice, claimants appeared through Mr. A A Hamal Advocate, whereas the other respondent despite service did not choose to contest these appeals and was proceeded ex parte. It would not be out of place to mention that other respondent had not contested the claim petition before the Tribunal as well. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have assailed the impugned awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kishtwar for the reasons that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself to order the respondent-insurer, appellant herein, to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants instead of asking the owner to pay the same as both the deceased had been travelling on a goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and in view of the settled legal position that only the owner of the goods or his agent can travel by a goods vehicle as they are covered under the insurance cover, however, in both the Claim Petitions, there is no proof that the deceased had been traveling in the goods vehicle along with their goods as owners or agent of the owners, as such, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the insured-owner only, as the appellant-insurer was under no legal obligation to pay compensation for those persons who were not covered under the Policy of insurance of the offending vehicle. 7. He has also argued that so far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal had deducted one third of the income of deceased Rakesh Gupta who was a bachelor, whereas half of his income should have been deducted on his personal expenses in view of the settled legal position. Moreover, the Tribunal had also wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16 which was applicable having regard to the age of the deceased between 30 to 35 years. He also argued that in the case of deceased Madan Lal whose age was 30 years, the multiplier of 18 had been applied by the Tribunal instead of 17 and thus in both the cases the compensation has been computed wrongly and requires to be slashed down. He has finally submitted that the quantum of compensation be computed afresh to work out just and fair compensation and the liability to pay the same should also be fixed as that of insured-owner, instead of insurer-appellant. 8. He has finally submitted that the quantum of compensation be computed afresh to work out just and fair compensation and the liability to pay the same should also be fixed as that of insured-owner, instead of insurer-appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, ex adverso, argued that the plea for non-liability of the appellant-insurer with regard to indemnifying the insured, in view of the deceased travelling as gratuitous passengers is between insurer and the insured and the claimants have nothing to do with this plea. So far as the computation of the quantum is concerned, he has fairly conceded that the multipliers have been wrongly applied by the Tribunal and 50% deduction have also not been made in case of bachelor deceased and stated that the respondents-claimants have no objection in case the quantum is re-worked by application of the proper multiplier and deduction of 50% of income, in case of deceased bachelor. 9. On consideration of the record of both the Claim Petitions, it is found that both the deceased had been travelling by the offending goods vehicle (Tata Mobile) as gratuitous passengers. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation on account of gratuitous passengers travelling in goods carrier is no longer res-integra as there are scores of judgments including the judgments of the Apex Court titled “National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors”, reported as (2008) 1 SCC 432, “National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kour & Ors”, reported as (2004) 1 ACJ 428 and “National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Prema Devi & Ors”, reported as 2008 AIR SCW 2023, wherein it has been well settled that the Insurance Company is not liable for paying compensation for the death of gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods carrier as the same is not covered under the Insurance cover. A division Bench of this Court has also held the same view in a case titled “Darshan Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, reported as 2013 2 JKJ 36 .Therefore, it is held that the Tribunal had wrongly fastened the liability on the insurer, instead of the insured, to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. A division Bench of this Court has also held the same view in a case titled “Darshan Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, reported as 2013 2 JKJ 36 .Therefore, it is held that the Tribunal had wrongly fastened the liability on the insurer, instead of the insured, to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. So far as the application of multiplier is concerned, the law is well settled in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma case, 2009(6) SCC 121 by the Apex Court and reiterated in case titled “National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi & Ors”, reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Relevant paragraphs 42, 44 and 45 are extracted as under: “42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 46. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means actual income less than the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur. 47. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means actual income less than the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur. 47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall subserve the cause of justice and the unnecessary contest before the tribunals and the courts would be avoided.” 11. So far as deduction of income of a bachelor deceased, on account of personal expenses is concerned, in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the Apex Court has laid that in regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. After the aforesaid judgment, the Courts and the Tribunals have been following to accept 50% of the income of the bachelor deceased, as contribution to the family. 12. Learned Tribunal in Clam Petition No. 56 titled “Rameshwar Dass Gupts & Ors vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr” while computing the compensation for the death of deceased Rakesh Gupta, while deciding Issue No.3 accepted the income of Rs.40,000/- per annum instead of pleaded amount of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month in view of the petition having been filed in terms of Section 163-A M.V.Act and the Tribunal after deducting one third of his income on personal expenses, accepted two third of the annual income as loss of dependence to the claimants and with application of the multiplier of 18 having regard to the age of deceased as 30 years, assessed the total loss of dependency of the petitioners at Rs.4,80,006/- and also granted an amount of Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- as cremation expenses and Rs.5000/- as loss of consortium, thus the petitioners were held entitled to total compensation to an amount of Rs.4,89,506/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has held that the proper multiplier to be applied in the age (26 to 30 years) shall be 17.Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18 instead of 17 . 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has held that the proper multiplier to be applied in the age (26 to 30 years) shall be 17.Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18 instead of 17 . 13. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the deduction on account of his personal living expenses was to be made 50% of his income, in view of the settled legal position and not as one third as has been done by the Tribunal. With the deduction of 50% from the annual income of Rs.40,000/-, the loss of dependency to the claimants is, thus, Rs.20,000/-. With application of the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to (20,000x17) = Rs.3,40,000/- Besides the loss of dependency to the claimants, they were also granted Rs.5,000/- as loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- as cremation expenses and Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium. With addition of these amounts, the total compensation to which the claimants shall be entitled to shall be as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.3,40,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs.5,000/- 3. Cremation expenses Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3,52,000/- 14. The Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 54 titled “Ishar Dass Gupta & Anr. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr” while deciding Issue No.3, as to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, accepted the monthly income of deceased Madan Lal Gupta as Rs.8,000/- and having regard to the number of dependents a deduction of one third was made on account of personal expenses of the deceased leaving behind two third of the amount which comes to Rs.5334/- available for the claimants as his legal heirs and dependents and having regard to the age 32 to 33 years, the multiplier of 17 was used, whereas in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case referred (supra), the proper multiplier to be applied in the age group of 31 to 35 years is 16. With monthly loss of dependents Rs.5334/- rounded to Rs.5330/- and application of 16 as multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to (5330x12x16)=Rs.10,23,360/-. Therefore, the claimants in the aforesaid petition are entitled to be compensated for Rs.10,23,360/- as loss of dependence. With monthly loss of dependents Rs.5334/- rounded to Rs.5330/- and application of 16 as multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to (5330x12x16)=Rs.10,23,360/-. Therefore, the claimants in the aforesaid petition are entitled to be compensated for Rs.10,23,360/- as loss of dependence. Besides the loss of dependency to the claimants, they were also granted Rs.5,000/- as loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- as cremation expenses and Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium. With addition of these amounts, the total compensation to which the claimants shall be entitled to, shall be as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.10,23,360/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs.5000/- 3. Cremation expenses Rs.2000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.5000/- Total Rs.10,35,360/- 15. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made herein above, both the appeals are, accordingly, allowed in the following terms: a) The petitioners/claimants in Claim Petition No. 54/2004 titled “Ishar Dass Gupta & Anr. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr” instead of Rs.10,81,200/- shall be entitled to Rs.10,35,360/- along with interest as granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. b) The petitioners/claimants in Claim Petition No. 56/2004 titled “Rameshwar Dass Gupts & Ors vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr” instead of Rs.4,89,506/- shall be entitled to Rs.3,52,000/-along with interest as granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. c) Since the liability has been fixed on the insured and not the insurer, the appellant-Insurance Company shall make payment of the award amount to the petitioners/claimants with right of recovery from the insured-owner of the vehicle. 16. The amount, if deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company with the Registry of this Court, shall be paid to the petitioners/claimants under rules. 17. Copies of this judgment shall be placed across the files of both the appeals and shall also be sent down to the Tribunal for information.