ORDER : 1. Since, the above mentioned appeals arise out of a common award, they are being heard and decided together. 2. Both the above appeals are preferred by the appellants challenging the impugned award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, (C.G.) (henceforth, 'the Tribunal) passed in Claim Case No.18/2016. 3. Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017 has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.493 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from any liability to pay the compensation. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants/claimants are legal heirs of the deceased- Bhagwat Jangde alleging therein that on 07.07.2015, Bhagwat Jangde had gone from Village Nayapara to Village Raikheda along with Balaram Bhatpahri from motorcycle and when both were returning to Village Nayapara on the motorcycle, they were reached near the Semaria Canal Bridge, a vehicle was coming from village Kosamsara bearing registration No.CG-22-AB-5220 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. In the aforesaid accident, Bhagwat Jangde and Balaram suffered grievous multiple injuries on their body. Thereafter, both took treatment from Primary Health Centre, Kasdol and thereafter referred to Raipur for better treatment. During treatment, Bhagwat Jangde died on the same day. Accident was reported to Police Station-Kasdol based upon which crime was registered against the Driver-cum-Owner of the offending vehicle namely Ravindra Kumar. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. 5. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017, Claimants are widow, children & parents of deceased, filed an application under Sections 165 & 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on different heads. 6. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017, non-applicant No.1, i.e., Driver & Owner of offending vehicle submitted reply to application while denying the pleadings made therein also pleaded that the appellant has grossly exaggerated the amount of compensation. It is further pleaded that Bhagwat Jangde and Balaram Bhatpahri were driving motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and collided with vehicle No. CG-22-AB-5220 parked on the roadside. On the date of accident, the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that Bhagwat Jangde and Balaram Bhatpahri were driving motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and collided with vehicle No. CG-22-AB-5220 parked on the roadside. On the date of accident, the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. Thus, there is no negligence on his part and if the appellant is found entitled for any compensation then, non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. 7. Non-applicant No.2, i.e., Insurance Company has submitted its reply to application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that the vehicle in question was being driven without valid driving license and documents. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation on the above grounds. 8. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the Tribunal held that Bhagwat Jangde aged about 27 years (as per post-mortem Report Ex.A-19) died on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. Breach of policy condition was also not found to be proved. The Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded a sum of Rs.13,43,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon Non-applicants, jointly or severally. 9. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.493 of 2018, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in relying the fact that the offending vehicle is a commercial vehicle and registered as a transport vehicle (goods vehicle), which comes under the definition of provision of Section 2(47) of the Act. He further submits that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license to drive transport vehicle. He was holding driving license to drive the light motor vehicle. The Tribunal has overlooked the provision of Section 2(47) of the Act. The vehicle was insured by the appellant does not come under the definition of Section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section 2(21) of the Act is as under : “Section 2(21)- Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs.” 10. The provision of Section 2(21) of the Act is as under : “Section 2(21)- Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs.” 10. The provision of Section 2(47) of the Act is as under : “Section 2(47)- Transport Vehicle means a public service vehicle, goods carriage, educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.” 11. In Miscellaneous Appeal(C) No.1726 of 2017, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month overlooking the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the claimants, where they have very specifically pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased was working as 'Agriculturist' as well as 'Mason' thereby earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has not adding any amount towards future prospects. Deceased took treatment as in-patient till his death in Primary Health Centre, Kasdol and thereafter, Narayana Hospital, Raipur, but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain & sufferings and attendant as well. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- under other conventional heads, which is on lower side. 12. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that claimants have failed to place on record any material or document to prove occupation and income of deceased. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis. 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 call for any interference. 13. As per decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 held in paragraphs No.89 & 90 as under : “89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. As per decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 held in paragraphs No.89 & 90 as under : “89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub- section (2) of Section 10. They are `goods carriage', `heavy-goods vehicle', `heavy passenger motor-vehicle', `invalid carriage', `light motor-vehicle', `maxi-cab',`medium goods vehicle', `medium passenger motor-vehicle', `motorcab', `motorcycle', `omnibus', `private service vehicle', `semi-trailer', `tourist vehicle', `tractor', `trailer' and `transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. As a person possessing a driving licence for `motorcycle without gear', [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a `maxi-cab', `motor-cab' or `omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. “90. We have construed and determined the scope of subclause(ii) of sub- section(2) of Section 149 of the Act. “90. We have construed and determined the scope of subclause(ii) of sub- section(2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.” It is undisputed fact that the Driver of the offending vehicle namely Ravindra Kumar was holding driving license to drive a light motor vehicle which was issued by the competent authority. Unladen weight of the vehicle No. CG- 22-AB-5220 was not exceed to 7500 kgs, therefore, it falls under the category of Section 2(21) of the Act. If on facts, it is found that the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving license. In this case, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the driving license to drive the light motor vehicle, it is not a fundamental breach of insurance policy under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire records adduced by the parties before the Claim Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 15. Firstly, I am dealing with the issue of enhancement of the compensation amount. 16. Undisputedly at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. The date of accident is 07.07.2015 and at that time minimum wage of unskilled labour was Rs.5,787/-. The Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month (Rs.72,000/- yearly). Hence, monthly income of the deceased awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side or higher side, rather it is just and proper and does not require for any interference. 17. The Tribunal has not added any income towards his future prospects as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 17. The Tribunal has not added any income towards his future prospects as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . There should be on addition of 40% amount of the established income of the deceased is required as age of the deceased was 26 to 30 years and was working as 'agriculturist' as well as 'mason'. On addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects total amount of Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.72,000+ 40% = 72,000 + 28,800). 18. As the deceased was a married person and number of dependency is 5', therefore, on deduction of 1/4 of above amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes Rs.75,600 (Rs.1,00,800 – 25,200). 19. Since the deceased was aged about 27 years, multiplier of 17' assessed by the Tribunal which is just and proper. Applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of loss of dependency becomes Rs.75,600 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200/-. 20. With regard to the other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium (for appellant No.1), Rs.1,00,000 - 1,00,000/- towards loss of parental consortium (for appellants No.2 & 3) and Rs.50,000- 50,000/- towards loss of filial consortium (for appellants No.4 & 5) and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhuru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 have considered the issue with regard to award of amount of compensation under other conventional heads. The heads have been ascertained and amount of compensation to be awarded on these heads are also fixed, i.e., Rs.40,000/- towards consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expense. 22. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, the Claimants are entitled to get amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expense and further Claimants are also entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- as there are five Claimants) on the head of different consortium. 23. 22. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, the Claimants are entitled to get amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expense and further Claimants are also entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- as there are five Claimants) on the head of different consortium. 23. Looking to the above observations made by this Court, now I am recalculating the compensation which should be awarded : Sr.No. Heads Awarded by this Court (in rupees) (i) Monthly income of the deceased 6,000/- (ii) Annual income of the deceased 6,000 x 12 = 72,000/- (iii) Future prospects 40% 28,800/- (iv) Total yearly income 1,00,800/- (v) Personal expenditure (1/4) 25,200/- (vi) Net income 75,600/- (vii) Multiplier of 17' applied to assess total loss of dependency 75,600 x 17 = 12,85,200/- (viii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- (ix) Loss of estate 15,000/- (x) Towards loss of spousal consortium for Claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- (xi) Towards loss of parental consortium for Claimants No.2 & 3 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.80,000/- (xii) Towards filial loss of consortium for Claimants No.4 & 5 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.80,000/- (xiii) Total Compensation amount Rs.15,15,200/- 24. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.13,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,15,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.13,43,000/-, the Claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,72,200/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 25. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The Insurance Company/non-applicant No.2 shall pay the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 26. Consequently, Misc. Appeal (C) No.1726 of 2017 is partly allowed and Misc. Appeal (C) No.493 of 2018 is hereby dismissed.