ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants /Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.12.2017 passed in Claim Case No.311/2014, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the application filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 by Claimants and awarded Rs.3,69,500/- as compensation in a fatal accident case. 2. According to the claim petition moved before the Tribunal, on 14.01.2011, Sanjay Kumar Patre was going to Village Semra, in his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 10 EH 1863. In the way, near canal road in front of Village Semra School, accident was occurred with motorcycle TVS Moped bearing registration No.CG 10 H 1893. Due to which, Sanjay Kumar Patre sustained fatal injury and was succumbed in the hospital. The vehicle involved in the said accident was owned by Ghasiram Suryavanshi who was husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 6. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.7/IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. Accident was reported to concerned police station based upon which crime was registered against the Driver of vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 EH 1863, i.e., deceased. After conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. Appellants/Claimants, who are parents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- (rupees thirteen lakh ten thousand) pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased- Sanjay Kumar Patre was aged about 22 years and working as 'Carpenter' and earning Rs.3,300/- per month as salary. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 6 have filed their written statement pleading therein death of Sanjay Kumar Patre was not caused by vehicle registration No. CG 10 H 1893. As deceased was not doing any work, he is not earning any money/income and claimants are not dependent upon the deceased. On the date of accident, motorcycle TVS Moped No. CG 10 H 1893 was insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No.7 for the period from 08.11.2010 to 07.11.2011. Deceased drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and therefore he himself is responsible for the alleged accident. 5. On the date of accident, motorcycle TVS Moped No. CG 10 H 1893 was insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No.7 for the period from 08.11.2010 to 07.11.2011. Deceased drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and therefore he himself is responsible for the alleged accident. 5. Respondent No.7/ Insurance Company submitted its reply to application, while denying the pleadings made therein pleaded that accident was result of negligent driving of Sanjay Kumar Patre (Deceased) himself. It is denied that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.3,300/- and annual income of Rs.39,600/-. In this regard, it is stated that no documents have been presented by the Claimants regarding income, age and work of the deceased. The Claimants have sought compensation by making exaggerated statements. The deceased himself had caused the accident by hitting the parked vehicle of non-applicant No.1. Therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the Tribunal held that the Claimants have filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Sanjay Kumar Patre, who was son of the Appellants/Claimants, died in motor accident. The annual income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs.39,600/- per annum at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per month, which is within the maximum limit of annual income of Rs.40,000/- which is prescribed in the Second Schedule of the MV Act. Since, the claim is under Section 163-A of the Act, it has been prescribed under the Act, therefore, in the light of the provisions of Section 163-A(2) of the Act, the death of the deceased- Sanjay Kumar Patre has been declared as motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 10 H 1893. There is no need to prove the unauthorized act or omission or neglect done by the Driver and Owner Ghasiram. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position in Paragraph 8 in its order dated 24.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar & Others) and has held as under : "..................8. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position in Paragraph 8 in its order dated 24.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar & Others) and has held as under : "..................8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163-A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163-A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention." 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding very meager amount of compensation in the facts of the case. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing income of appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month only. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 18, overlooking the date of accident and specific pleading and oral statement of Claimants that on the date of accident, he was aged about 22 years and working as 'Carpenter' and earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded very meager amount on other pecuniary damages and erred in not awarding appropriate amount of compensation towards non- pecuniary damages. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 9. The Tribunal has awarded very meager amount on other pecuniary damages and erred in not awarding appropriate amount of compensation towards non- pecuniary damages. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 9. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants and submits that Claimants have failed to place on record any material or document to prove occupation, age and income of deceased. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month on notional basis. Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration, the Claimants have awarded total compensation amount of Rs.3,69,500/-. Hence, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not require for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 11. Indisputably, claim application is filed under Section 163 (A) of the Act of 1988. Section 163 (A) is a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated under the Second Schedule, to legal heirs of deceased or victim of a motor accident. Once application is filed under Section 163(A), claimants cannot claim income of deceased/victim more than Rs.40,000/- in any case. If income is claimed more than Rs.40,000/-, application itself would not be maintainable under the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Act of 1988. In case at hand, Claimants have consciously chosen to file application under Section 163(A) pleadings income of deceased as Rs.3,300/- per month. Perusal of Second Schedule would show that there is no provision regarding addition to income of deceased/victim towards future prospects. Hence, submission of learned counsel for the Claimants with regard to non-award of future prospects is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 12. So far as submission with regard to assessment of income is concerned, the Tribunal without any rhyme or reason has assessed income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month even though accident took place on 14.01.2011. Taking into consideration the date of accident, nature of employment/ occupation of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month. So far as submission with regard to assessment of income is concerned, the Tribunal without any rhyme or reason has assessed income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month even though accident took place on 14.01.2011. Taking into consideration the date of accident, nature of employment/ occupation of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,300/- per month. 13. Dealing with the issue in (2004) 3 SCC 297 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, it is held by the Supreme Court as under : “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third- party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have t be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 14. Reiterating the judgment of Swaran Singh case (supra), in (2018) 9 SCC 650 (Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited), it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver ... does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 7. The Supreme Court considered the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 , wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 705, para 5) “5. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party risks and in case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.” 15. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party risks and in case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.” 15. In (2011) 6 SCC 425 (Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain), it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “10. On behalf of Respondent 6, National Insurance Company Ltd., it was sought to be urged that at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, accordingly, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for making payment of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Apart from the fact that Jatin, who was riding the motorcycle, did not have a valid driving licence, it had also been established that he was a minor at the time of the accident and consequently the Insurance Company had been rightly relieved of the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants and such liability had been correctly fixed on the owner of the motorcycle, Jawahar Singh. 11. It has been well settled that if it is not possible for an awardee to recover the compensation awarded against the driver of the vehicle, the liability to make payment of the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that in this case since the person riding the motorcycle at the time of accident was a minor, the responsibility for paying the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the motorcycle. In fact, in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 650 , it was held by this Court that in case the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence at all, the liability to make payment of compensation fell on the owner since it was his obligation to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. 12. Before the Tribunal reliance was also placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gh. Mohd. Wani, 2004 ACJ 1424 (J&K) and National Insurance Co. 12. Before the Tribunal reliance was also placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gh. Mohd. Wani, 2004 ACJ 1424 (J&K) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gadigewwa, 2005 ACJ 40 (Kant), wherein it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, then the Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that no interference was called for with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in the special leave petition.” 16. In (2019) 7 SCC 217 (Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited), it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “7. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken by the High Court that the respondent Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licences. It is also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court. 7.1 This Court in Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650 , held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of “pay and recover” can be ordered to direct the insurance company to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 17. Recently, in (2022) 1 SCC 317 (Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu), it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000 (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000 (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident.” 18. Deduction as prescribed under Second Schedule is only 1/3rd and there is no mention of application of different deduction based on numbers of Claimants. For computing amount of compensation in application filed under Section 163(A), amount of compensation on other different heads are to be awarded strictly as prescribed under Second Schedule and not beyond that. In view of above, Tribunal has correctly applied deduction of 1/3rd which is affirmed by this Court. 19. So far as submission with regard to application of multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed age of deceased up to 15 years. In Second Schedule, multiplier of 15' is prescribed for the persons who was are in the age group of up to 15 years. In the present case, age of the deceased is 22 years. Therefore, multiplier of 17' shall applied as per the Second Schedule. Thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier of 15', which is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. Appropriate multiplier is 17', and it is ordered accordingly. 20. For the foregoing reasons, I propose to recompute the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,300/- per month, as held above and accordingly yearly income comes to Rs.39,600/- (3,300X12). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of deceased annual loss of yearly dependency comes to Rs.26,400/- (39600 – 1/3). By applying multiplier of 17, total loss of dependency will come to Rs.4,48,800/- (26,400 X17). Apart from this, Claimants are entitled to Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of deceased annual loss of yearly dependency comes to Rs.26,400/- (39600 – 1/3). By applying multiplier of 17, total loss of dependency will come to Rs.4,48,800/- (26,400 X17). Apart from this, Claimants are entitled to Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of filial consortium which in the opinion of this Court should be awarded Rs.23,500/- each (total Rs.47,000/-) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra). 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available on record and it is well established that Driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Churu Ram & Ors; (2008) 18 SCC 130 & Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Another (supra), this Court is recomputing the compensation as below: - 1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,300/- 2. Yearly income of the deceased Rs.3,300 x 12 = Rs.39,600/- 3. Personal and living expenses (1/3) Rs.13,200/- 4. Net income Rs.39,600 -13,200 = Rs.26,400/- 5. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency Rs.4,48,800/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- 8. Loss of filial consortium to Claimants (Rs.23,500/- each) Rs.47,000/- 9. Total compensation Rs.5,00,300/- 23. For the forging reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,00,300/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,69,500/-, the Claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,30,800/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 60 days. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 24. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The Insurance Company/respondent No.7 shall pay the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants first and thereafter as per the 'Doctrine of Pay and Recover', shall recover the same from respondents No.1 to 6. 25. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 24. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The Insurance Company/respondent No.7 shall pay the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants first and thereafter as per the 'Doctrine of Pay and Recover', shall recover the same from respondents No.1 to 6. 25. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.