JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as these arise from the same award dated 31.10.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. (for short, “Tribunal”) in MACT Petition No. 8FTC/2 of 2010. 2. The appellants in FAO No. 465 of 2015 were the claimants having preferred petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”) before the learned Tribunal. The respondents Notified Area Committee, Rajgarh and Sh. Kharak Singh, were impleaded as owner and driver, respectively of the ill-fated vehicle. The appellant in FAO No. 37 of 2013 was impleaded as insurer. 3. The claimants claimed compensation on account of death of Sh. Vinod Kumar. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are the children and claimant No. 4 is the mother of deceased Vinod Kumar. 4. It was alleged that the deceased Vinod Kumar was working as Junior Engineer on contract basis with the owner. On 01.12. 2009, the deceased was travelling in vehicle No.HP16-1251 belonging to the owner and being driven by the driver from Solan to Rajgarh . The vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased received serious injuries in the accident, which resulted in his death. The deceased was stated to be 32 years old at the time of death and his income was claimed at Rs.8700/- per month from salary being paid by the owner and Rs. 25,000/- from agriculture. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith interest was claimed as compensation. 5. The owner in its reply to the claim petition admitted that the deceased was posted as Junior Engineer with the owner on contract basis. It was submitted that the total salary of deceased was Rs.5800/- and in addition, he was also being paid a sum of Rs.2900/- per month as D.P. allowance. The negligence on part of the driver was admitted. It was alleged that the driver and the deceased both were drunk at the time of accident. The vehicle was stated to be insured with the insurer and on such ground indemnification was sought. 6. The driver separately filed his reply and denied the cause of accident to be his rash and negligent driving. It was submitted that the driver was having a valid driving licence. The vehicle was stated to be insured with the insurer and on such ground indemnification was sought. 6. The driver separately filed his reply and denied the cause of accident to be his rash and negligent driving. It was submitted that the driver was having a valid driving licence. The cause of accident was attributed to sudden failure of brakes of the vehicle. The compensation claimed by the claimants was stated to be highly exaggerated. 7. In its reply, the insurer denied its liability to indemnify the owner by alleging violation of the policy of insurance. The owner was stated to be not entitled for indemnification on the ground that the liability as had arisen in the case was not covered under Section 147 of the Act. 8. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 01.12.2009 at 10.30 p.m. at village Miyog Vinod Kumar sustained multiple and grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-16-1251 by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident was caused due to sheer negligence of respondent No.2 and deceased Vinod Kumar as they were fully drunkard for which no compensation can be granted for their wrong, as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the accident in question occurred due to sudden failure of front brakes system of the vehicle, as alleged? OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No.3, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the driver of the alleged vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Whether the vehicle No. HP-16-1251 was not validly registered at the time of alleged accident, as alleged? OPR-3. 8. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of standard terms and conditions of insurance policy and against Motor Vehicle and Rules and the deceased official was unauthorized passenger, as alleged? OPR-3. 9. Relief. Issue No. 1 was answered in affirmative. Issue No.3 was also answered in affirmative partially. Issues No. 4 to 8 were decided in negative. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.11,49,400/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition. OPR-3. 9. Relief. Issue No. 1 was answered in affirmative. Issue No.3 was also answered in affirmative partially. Issues No. 4 to 8 were decided in negative. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.11,49,400/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition. The insurer has been held to satisfy the award. 9. In FAO No. 37 of 2013, the insurer has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the status of deceased in the vehicle in question was proved to be that of an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger. The liability was not falling within the limits prescribed under Section 147 of the Act. The vehicle in question was a goods carrier. No premium had been paid by the owner or accepted by the insurer so as to cover the liability of the passenger. 10. In FAO No. 465 of 2015, the claimants have assailed the impugned award being inadequate. The claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 12. As per the pleaded case of the claimants in the petition, deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar was travelling in the vehicle in question on 01.12.2009 from Rajgarh to Solan in relation with official works and while coming back, the accident had taken place. The occupation of the deceased was Junior Engineer. 13. The owner has not specifically denied the averment to above effect made in the petition. 14. The registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident is HP-16-1251. Its registration certificate has been placed on record as Ext. RX. According to this document, the class of vehicle has been mentioned as LCV. The type of body is Open Tipper. The seating capacity has been mentioned as 2 + 1. The description of the vehicle as mentioned in the policy of insurance Ext. RW-1/D is as under: “Make & Model = Eicher Motors & 10.70 Tipper Vehicle sub-class = Tipper Model Build = Partially Built Type of body = Open” 15. As per the certificate of registration, the unladen weight of vehicle is 2770 Kilograms. Thus, the vehicle in question will be termed as LMV. RW-1/D is as under: “Make & Model = Eicher Motors & 10.70 Tipper Vehicle sub-class = Tipper Model Build = Partially Built Type of body = Open” 15. As per the certificate of registration, the unladen weight of vehicle is 2770 Kilograms. Thus, the vehicle in question will be termed as LMV. As per Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the description of the vehicle by its construction or adaptation for use evidently is solely for the carriage of goods. In this way, the vehicle was a goods carriage within the meaning of term defined in Section 2 (14) of the Act. 16. The inevitable conclusion from the material on record is that the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage vehicle. It is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased had gone to Solan from Rajgarh for some official work by travelling in the vehicle and in the similar fashion he was coming back, when the accident occurred. 17. It is more than settled that term “any person” in Section 147 of the Act relates only to a third party and a passenger in a goods carriage vehicle is not a third party. The insurer would only be liable to indemnify the owner either in respect of claim arising out of the death or bodily injury to third party or to the owner of goods or his authorised representative or the employee of the owner of the vehicle, who falls within the categories provided in sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act. 18. The deceased was neither the owner of goods nor his authorised representative. The only window available for discussion is whether the deceased would be covered as an employee of the owner of the vehicle under Section 147 (2) of the Act. While expounding as to the meaning of employee of the owner for the purpose of Section 147 of the Act, it has been held that only such employee shall be covered under Section 147 of the Act whose employment is in relation with the running of the vehicle viz a cleaner or helper for maintaining the vehicle. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2013 (1) ACJ 1, para 24, wherein it has been held as under: “24. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2013 (1) ACJ 1, para 24, wherein it has been held as under: “24. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i) (c ) of the proviso refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the statutory policy. On an apposite reading of sections 147 and 167 the intendment of the legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the statutory policy covers only the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and, therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.” 19. In light of what has been discussed above, the deceased was not covered under any of the accepted categories of persons under Section 147 of the Act. It is also evident from policy of insurance Ext. RW-1/D that the owner had not paid any extra premium for carriage of the passengers in the vehicle. The parties to a contract of insurance are bound by its terms. It is also evident from policy of insurance Ext. RW-1/D that the owner had not paid any extra premium for carriage of the passengers in the vehicle. The parties to a contract of insurance are bound by its terms. Since, the deceased was not covered to be a person authorised to travel in the vehicle in question, he was an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger and for such reason, the insured/owner was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. 20. Turning to the merits of FAO No. 465 of 2015, it can be seen that the claimants have been awarded a total amount of Rs.11,49,400/- as compensation. The income of the deceased has been considered at Rs.8700/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd of the salary for personal expenses, the contribution of deceased to his family was considered at Rs.5700/- per month. The annual dependency thus was calculated at Rs.68,400/- per annum. Taking into account the age of deceased as 32 years, the multiplier of 16 was applied and the total dependency was calculated at Rs.10,94,400/-. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for transportation of dead body. The claimants were held entitled to Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and in addition, claimant No.1 was held entitled to additional sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head consortium. 21. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is not in consonance with the settled legal position. He submitted that the claimants were entitled to the calculation of the monthly income of deceased by adding 50% of the monthly salary to the salary otherwise received by him in terms of law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 . In this manner, the total monthly income of the deceased was to be calculated at Rs.13,050/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of personal expenses, the remainder would be Rs.8700/-. The dependency was to be assessed at Rs.1,04,400/- (Rs. 8700 x 12) and further by applying multiplier of 16, the total dependency would be Rs.16,70,400/- (Rs.1,04,400 x 16). In addition, the loss of consortium to claimant No.1 has also been alleged to be on lesser side. Again by making a reference to judgment passed in NIC Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Shri Ram General Insurance Co. 8700 x 12) and further by applying multiplier of 16, the total dependency would be Rs.16,70,400/- (Rs.1,04,400 x 16). In addition, the loss of consortium to claimant No.1 has also been alleged to be on lesser side. Again by making a reference to judgment passed in NIC Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.03.2023, a claim of Rs. 40,000/- under this head is claimed to be genuine. A sum of Rs.15,000/- has also been claimed on account of loss of estate. 22. Noticeably, no addition on account of future prospects has been allowed by learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) addition of 50% of the monthly income of deceased was required to be added. Thus, the total income of the deceased was to be assessed at Rs.13,050/- and after deducting 1/3rd of monthly income for personal expenses, the monthly dependency would be Rs.8,700/-. By multiplying the above figure by 12, the annual dependency would be Rs.1,04,400/-. The multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied and thus, the total dependency assessable in the case of claimants is Rs.1,04,400/- x 16 = Rs.16,70,400/-. 23. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of consortium, which as per the dictum in terms of Pranay Sethi and Bhagat Ram Rawat (supra) has to be Rs.40,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is also payable to the claimants on account of loss of estate. Funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- has rightly been calculated. 24. In this manner, the claimants were entitled to total award of Rs.17,40,000/- (Rs.16,70,400/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-). 25. In light of above discussion, the appeals are allowed and impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,40,400/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The liability to discharge the amount of compensation shall be on the owner. The insurer shall stand exonerated from indemnifying the owner. 26. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed.