JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants directed against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2018, in MVC No.681/2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII at Shivamogga (for short ‘Tribunal’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are that: On 15.06.2013, at about 3.00 a.m., deceased Sathisha was working as a Mechanic and along with other employees in order to attend marriage at Shravanabelagola left Shivamogga in a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510 at 11 p.m. and when they were proceeding near Madihalli village near Tiptur, at about 3.00 a.m., on 16.06.2013, due to rash and negligent driving of Mahesh, the van toppled on the road in a curve. Due to the said accident, the inmates of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and Sathisha died at the spot and the driver of the Van succumbed while being shifted to hospital. The claimants are his parents and sister. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.21,70,000/-. 4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1 in his statement of objections has contended that the offending Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510 was owned by his father namely M.G.Lakshman Naika. His father died on 09.02.2012 and the same was informed to M/s.Shruthi Motors as well as respondent No.2. The M/s.Shruthi Motors, the authorized agent got the said vehicle insured with the respondent No.2 on 05.02.2013 vide policy No.88273919 and was valid upto 04.02.2014. After the death of his father, respondent No.1 has renewed the insurance policy. The said offending vehicle was entrusted to deceased Mahesh by M/s.Shruthi Motors in order to attend the marriage. The inmates of the offending vehicle were the workers of M/s.Shruthi Motors and hence, contends that M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. He has further contended that he has issued legal notice dated 24.01.2014 against M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 to pay the damages caused to his vehicle and reply dated 06.02.2014 was given choosing to repudiate the claim of the respondent No.1. He has further contended that he has issued legal notice dated 24.01.2014 against M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 to pay the damages caused to his vehicle and reply dated 06.02.2014 was given choosing to repudiate the claim of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has also filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Shivamogga under Complaint No.468/14 but the said complaint was dismissed by the said forum holding that it does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, prays to saddle the liability on M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2. 5. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement denied the averments of the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle Mahesh was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and hence, there is breach of policy conditions and prays to dismiss the petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner No.2 was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-11. The respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW-1 and both the respondents have got marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.4. 7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,12,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence of accident and death of said Sathisha is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal ought to have taken notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. But, it has taken income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' may be re-calculated taking notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month as the accident is of the year 2013. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side. But, it has taken income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' may be re-calculated taking notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month as the accident is of the year 2013. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matters disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. He therefore requests this Court to enhance the compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and there is no need to enhance the same. Respondent No.1 has contended that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on him and dismissing the petition against the respondent No.2 and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is contended that the deceased was working as a Mechanic in M/s. Shruthi Motors, Shivamogga and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident has taken place in the year 2013 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. As the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of accident, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi supra. The multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, on re- determination of the ‘loss of dependency’, the same works out to be 8,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.12,09,600/- 12. The multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, on re- determination of the ‘loss of dependency’, the same works out to be 8,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.12,09,600/- 12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’ to the appellants. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) as per the law laid down in Magma case supra. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘transportation of dead body, funeral expenses charges and miscellaneous expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’. Hence, the same are just and reasonable. 14. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by this Court under various heads are as follows: 15. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.13,74,600/- as against Rs.10,12,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,74,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Regarding pay and recovery: 16. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has taken up specific defence before the Tribunal that it is not liable to pay the compensation as respondent No.1 has violated the policy conditions as he being the owner of the offending vehicle has let out the Van for rent to M/s. Shruthi Motors on rental basis and was earning income from the said car and even the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. To prove its defence, it has got examined the Branch Manager of the insurance company, who in his examination-in-chief has deposed that offending vehicle with seating capacity of eight was insured with insurance company with a package policy vide Policy No.88273919 valid upto 04.02.2014 which stood in the name of Lakshman Naika. It has also contended that the respondent No.1 had approached the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum at Shivamogga in C.C.No.468/2014 which was dismissed as there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the insurance company. It has also contended that the respondent No.1 had approached the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum at Shivamogga in C.C.No.468/2014 which was dismissed as there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the insurance company. It has contended that the respondent No.1 had leased out offending vehicle to M/s.Shruthi Motors and the said company in turn had given the vehicle to deceased Mahesh, who was driving the vehicle without holding valid and effective driving licence. Hence, respondent No.1 has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimants. However, as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) when the Insurance Company has established the fact that the offending vehicle was leased out for commercial purpose and entrusted the vehicle to a driver, who was not holding valid driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the order of pay and recovery is made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 ; National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yellavva and Another, 2020 ACJ 2560. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. 17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. Yellavva and Another, 2020 ACJ 2560. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. 17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.681/2014, dated 13.11.2018, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, at Shivamogga is modified; iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,74,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) The compensation amount along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle; v) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned Award of the Tribunal. vi) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest, if any shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. viii) No order as to costs.