JUDGMENT : 1. As all the appeals filed by claimants arise out of the different impugned awards dated 30.06.2015 & 16.07.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, C.G. in separate Claim Case No.143/2012 (MAC No.1177/2015), Claim Case No.144/2012 (MAC No.1176/2015) and Claim Case No.145/2012 (MAC No.1241/2015), involving the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal. 2. As per claim petitions, on 12/02/2010 at about 4:00 am, deceased persons namely Rayjuram, aged about 24 years, Pitturam, aged about 48 years and Sukadu Dodi, aged about 55 years, were going in a Truck bearing registration No.KA01-D-6798 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') from village Bojegauda to village Shrawanbelgola. However, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by non-applicant No.1/driver, it turned turtle, as a result of which, deceased persons sustained grievous injuries over their bodies and died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant no.2 and duly insured with non-applicant no.3. 3. On claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.143/2012 (MAC No.1177/2015) being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability on non-applicants no. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) while exonerating Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3 on the ground of breach of policy conditions. On claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.144/2012 (MAC No.1176/2015) being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability on non-applicants no. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) while exonerating Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3 on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) while exonerating Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3 on the ground of breach of policy conditions. On claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.145/2012 (MAC No.1241/2015) being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.5,91,800/- with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability on non-applicants no. 1 & 2 (driver and owner) while exonerating Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3 on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in all the appeals submits that no amount towards future prospects has been granted to the claimants by the Tribunal. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. He also submits that in Claim Case No.144/2012 (MAC No.1176/2015) the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 10, whereas it should be 13, looking to the age of the deceased- Pitturam i.e. 50 years. He also submits that though the Insurance Company has been exonerated by the Tribunal while fastening the liability upon owner and driver, but the Tribunal ought to have passed the order of pay and recover in the light of the fact that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company under standard commercial vehicle package policy. Therefore, it is prayed that the principle of pay and recover may be applied in these cases by directing the Insurance Company to pay first compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj vs Rajendra and another reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that at the time of accident, although the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in violation of the policy conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from paying compensation. 6. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from paying compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned award. 7. So far as non-grant of any amount under the head of future prospects by the Tribunal in all the appeals is concerned, a perusal of impugned award would show that the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards future prospects to the claimants, whereas on the date of accident i.e. 12.02.2010, deceased persons namely Rayjuram, Pitturam and Sukadu Dodi, were aged 24, 48 & 55 years respectively and on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, they died. In such a situation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the claimants under the head of future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Since the deceased persons were aged 24, 48 & 53 years respectively, therefore, looking to their age, they would get amount under the head future prospects according to the percentage wise, which in the instant cases, come to 40% of annual income of deceased- Rayjuram in MAC No.1177/2015, 25% of annual income of deceased- Pitturam in MAC No.1176/2015 and 10% of annual income of deceased- Sukadu Dodi in MAC No.1241/2015. 8. As regards the multiplier 10 used by the Tribunal in MAC No.1176/2015, in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46 to 50 years. Therefore, in the claim case No.144/2012 (MAC No.1176/2015), looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 50 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable multiplier would be 13 instead of 10 as used by the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, in the claim case No.144/2012 (MAC No.1176/2015), looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 50 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable multiplier would be 13 instead of 10 as used by the Tribunal. 9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants to the effect that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are on lower side in all the claim cases, from perusal of the record, it appears that the Tribunal has granted huge amount under conventional heads i.e. Rs.1,75,000/- to the claimants in MAC No.1176/2015, whereas the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) restricted the amount to be payable to the claimants under loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/-. In the present case i.e. MAC No.1176/2015, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under loss of consortium, which cannot be sustainable in law. Therefore, while taking into consideration the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the claimants who are two in number, are entitled to be awarded Rs.80,000/- i.e. 40,000/-each under loss of parental consortium in place of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate in place of Rs.75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get as sum of Rs.1,10,000/- under conventional heads in place of Rs.1,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Similarly, Tribunal has granted amount under conventional heads i.e. Rs.2,75,000/- to the claimants in MAC No.1241/2015, which is also on higher side, therefore, needs to be reconsidered. The Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) restricted the amount to be payable to the claimants under loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/-. In the present case also i.e. MAC No.1241/2015, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants under loss of consortium, which cannot be sustainable in law. The Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) restricted the amount to be payable to the claimants under loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/-. In the present case also i.e. MAC No.1241/2015, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants under loss of consortium, which cannot be sustainable in law. Therefore, while taking into consideration the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the claimants who are six in number, are entitled to be awarded Rs.2,40,000/- i.e. 40,000/-each under loss of spousal and parental consortium respectively in place of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate in place of Rs.75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get as sum of Rs.2,70,000/-under conventional heads in place of Rs.2,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Likewise, in MAC No.1177/2015, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant No.5 only is not just and proper. Therefore, while taking into consideration the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), I, propose to re-compute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents i.e. 5. As the appellants are the children and wife of the deceased, they are entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/-each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of parental consortium & spousal consortium. Further, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate in place of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get as sum of Rs.2,30,000/- under conventional heads in place of Rs.1,25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get as sum of Rs.2,30,000/- under conventional heads in place of Rs.1,25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In view of above, the claimants in all the appeals are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:- MAC No.1177/2015 S. No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1 Income of the deceased (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- x 12 = 36,000/- (per annum) Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect Not granted 40% of Rs. 36,000/- Rs.14,400/- Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.50, 3. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.18,000/- (1/2 of Rs.36,000/-) Rs.25,200/- (1/2 of Rs.50,400/-) 4 Annual loss of dependency Rs.36,000/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.18,000/- Rs.50,400/- – Rs.25,200/- = Rs.25,200/- 5. Multiplier for assessing total loss of dependency Rs.18,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/- Rs.25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/- 6. Towards conventional heads Rs.25,000/- (for funeral expenses) Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses} Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate} Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 1 to 5 i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.4,49,000/- Rs.6,83,600/- 13. In the present case i.e. MAC No.1177/2015, the claimants sought an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation in the claim petition, but after the above assessment, the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.6,83,600/-which is more than the amount claimed by the claimants in the claim petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto and others, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 , has held in para 17 as under:- “17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three- Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 14. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 14. In view of the above-stated law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi (supra), the claimants are held entitled to get a compensation of Rs.6,83,600/- which is more than the amount claimed by the claimants in the claim petition. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,49,000/- and after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.6,83,600/- awarded by this Court, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,34,600/- in MAC No.1177/2015 which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1176/2015 S. No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- x 12 = 36,000/- (per annum) Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect Not granted 25% of Rs. 36,000/- Rs.9,000/- Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/- = Rs.45,000/- 3. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.12,000/-(1/3 of Rs.36,000/-) Rs.15,000/-(1/3 of Rs.45,000/-) 4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/- =Rs.24,000/- Rs.45,000/- – Rs.15,000/-= Rs.30,000/- 5. Multiplier for assessing total loss of dependency Rs.24,000/- x 10 =Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.30,000/- x 13 =Rs.3,90,000/- 6. Towards conventional heads Rs.25,000/- (for funeral expenses) Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses} Rs.50,000/- (towards loss of estate) Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate} Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 1 & 2 i.e. Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.4,15,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,15,000/- and after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by this Court, the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.85,000/- in MAC No.1176/2015 which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1241/2015 S.No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased (as assessed by the Tribunal Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- x 12 = 36,000/- (per annum) Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- (per annum) 2. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1241/2015 S.No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased (as assessed by the Tribunal Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- x 12 = 36,000/- (per annum) Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect Not granted 10% of Rs. 36,000/- Rs.3,600/- Rs.36,000/- + Rs.3,600/- = Rs.39,600/- 3. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.7,200/- (1/5 of Rs.36,000/-) Rs.7,920/- (1/5 of Rs.39,600/-) 4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.36,000/- - Rs.7,200/- = Rs.28,800/- Rs.39,600/- – Rs.7,920/- = Rs.31,680/- 5. Multiplier for assessing total loss of dependency Rs.28,800/- x 11 = Rs.3,16,800/- Rs.31,680/- x 11 = Rs.3,48,480/- 6. Towards conventional heads Rs.25,000/- (for funeral expenses) Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses} Rs.50,000/- (towards loss of estate) Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate} Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 1 to 6 i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.5,91,800/- Rs.6,18,480/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,91,800/- and after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.6,18,480/- awarded by this Court, the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.26,680/- in MAC No.1241/2015 which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company under standard commercial vehicle package policy. However, taking into consideration the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the provisions of the Act having been enacted for the benefit of the victims of an accident, this Court is of the opinion that in the larger interest of the claimants and in order to achieve substantial justice the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Shivaraj (surpa) reiterating the principles in the case of Manuara Khatun and others vs Rajesh Kumar Singh and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the principle of pay and recover, needs to be applied. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to paragraphs-10 & 11 in the case of Shivaraj (supra) which for ready reference is reproduced hereinunder: “10. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to paragraphs-10 & 11 in the case of Shivaraj (supra) which for ready reference is reproduced hereinunder: “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh & Ors., Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1).” 16. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1).” 16. In view of above and considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant no.3/Insurance Company at the relevant time vide Ex.D-1 (Insurance Policy) and keeping in view the benevolent provisions of the Act in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in Shivaraj (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants first and then recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in question, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 17. In the result, all the appeals filed by the claimants are allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.