JUDGMENT : Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 06.12.2012, passed in MVC Nos.467 and 468 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. MFA Nos.23412/2013 and 23413/2013 are filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas, MFA Nos.20914/2013 and 20915/2013 are filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability fastened on it. 3. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund appearing for learned counsel Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy for the appellants/claimants, learned counsel Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar appearing for respondent No.1/Owner of Mahindra vehicle and learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 27.01.2012 claimant-Jagath Harijan (MVC No.467/2012) and claimant-Lakshmikantha Mahananda (MVC No.468/2012) (hereinafter both the claimants were referred to as the ‘deceased’) along with others were proceeding in the Mahendra Bolero Camper bearing registration No.AP-04/W-1826 (for short, ‘Mahendra Vehicle’) from Toranagallu towards KPCL along with goods. When the said vehicle reached near KPCL, NH-63 road, Kudithini, at that time, respondent No.1, being the driver of Mahendra vehicle, drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the said Mahendra vehicle turtled to the left side of road. Due to which, the claimants and others sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, both the claimants were shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary, where claimant-Lakshmikantha Mahananda was succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, another claimant- Jagath Harijan was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, have filed the claim petitions seeking compensation. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence available on record, allowed the claim petitions in part by awarding different amounts of compensation to each of the claimants by directing the Insurance Company to deposit the entire amounts along with accrued interest before the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that Ex.R1 is Insurance Policy, which is ‘Liability only policy’. The deceased have travelled in the Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No.AP-04/W-1826 as occupants. Therefore, the deceased being occupants travelled in the said Mahindra vehicle, are not be considered as third parties. Therefore, the risk is not covered under Ex.R1- Insurance Policy. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that Ex.R1 is Insurance Policy, which is ‘Liability only policy’. The deceased have travelled in the Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No.AP-04/W-1826 as occupants. Therefore, the deceased being occupants travelled in the said Mahindra vehicle, are not be considered as third parties. Therefore, the risk is not covered under Ex.R1- Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd., AND OTHERS VS. SHAMARAYA AND OTHERS , [MANU/KA/4690/2020] , has further argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, but the owner of Mahindra vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for allowing of these appeals by fastening liability on the owner of Mahindra vehicle. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Owner of Mahindra vehicle submitted that risk of occupants in the said Mahindra vehicle is also covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in considering the insurance policy and has rightly fastened liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for dismissal of these appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under all heads in respect of each claimants are on the lower side and seeks to enhance the same by allowing these appeals. REG: LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION: 9. Ex.P1 is FIR, Ex.P.1(A) is complaint, Ex.P2 is chargesheet, Ex.P3 is Spot Panchanama and Ex.P4 is Spot Sketch. Ex.R1-Insurance Policy is liability only policy, issued under Section 147 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , covering risk of third parties only. Though the claimants have stated that the deceased have travelled along with goods, but there is no evidence produced by the claimants that the deceased have travelled along with goods in the said Mahindra vehicle. 10. Upon perusing FIR (Ex.P1), Complaint (Ex.P.1(A)), Chargesheet (Ex.P2), Spot Panchanama (Ex.P3) and Spot Sketch (Ex.P4), there is no evidence on record that the deceased have travelled along with goods. Hence, it is proved that the deceased are occupants only, travelled in the said Mahindra vehicle. 10. Upon perusing FIR (Ex.P1), Complaint (Ex.P.1(A)), Chargesheet (Ex.P2), Spot Panchanama (Ex.P3) and Spot Sketch (Ex.P4), there is no evidence on record that the deceased have travelled along with goods. Hence, it is proved that the deceased are occupants only, travelled in the said Mahindra vehicle. If there is any evidence to prove that the deceased have travelled along with goods, then the thing would have been different in covering the risk under Section 147 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . But in the present case, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased have travelled along with goods in the Mahindra vehicle. Therefore, when the deceased have travelled as occupants in the said Mahindra vehicle without any goods, admittedly insurance policy is ‘liability only policy’. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of Mahindra vehicle. In this regard, the Tribunal has committed error in considering Ex.R1- Insurance Policy and fastening liability on the Insurance Company. The occupants in the said vehicle are to be considered as a third party, which is purely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of SHAMARAYA (referred supra). Hence, as per Ex.R1-Insurance Policy, the risks of deceased as they are occupants in Mahindra vehicle are not covered. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside and accordingly the owner of Mahindra vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Thus, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be allowed. Reg: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: i) In MFA No.23412/2013 (MVC No.467/2012) 11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency. 4,91,400/- 2. Towards loss of love and affection. 10,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate. 10,000/- 4. Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 20,000/- 5. Towards medical expenses from the date of accident till the date of death. 3,82,000/- Total: 9,13,400/- 12. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 13. 20,000/- 5. Towards medical expenses from the date of accident till the date of death. 3,82,000/- Total: 9,13,400/- 12. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 13. The deceased-Jagath Harijan was aged 26 years old as on the date of accident and was working as a welder in M.H.B. Company. The accident is caused on 27.01.2012. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/- for the year 2012, as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. The deceased was bachelor. Therefore 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.9,28,200/- (Rs.6,500 + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 17). 14. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. There are two dependents, who are father and mother. Accordingly, Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 15. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore under these heads Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded. 16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 9,28,200/- 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 2 +10%) 88,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 2 + 10%) 33,000/- Total: 10,49,200/- 17. 16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 9,28,200/- 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 2 +10%) 88,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 2 + 10%) 33,000/- Total: 10,49,200/- 17. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,49,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.9,13,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. i) In MFA No.23413/2013 (MVC No.468/2012) 18. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency. 8,42,400/- 2. Towards loss of consortium. 10,000/- 2. Towards loss of love and affection. 10,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate. 10,000/- 4. Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 7,500/- Total: 8,79,900/- 19. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 20. The deceased-Lakshmikantha Mahananda was aged 35 years old as on the date of accident and was working as a helper in Magnallai Bharath Company. The accident is caused on 27.01.2012. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/- for the year 2012, as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. There are four dependents i.e., wife, two children and mother. Therefore 1/4 th of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 15. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.6,500 + 40% x 3/4 x 12 x 15). 21. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 15. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.6,500 + 40% x 3/4 x 12 x 15). 21. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. There are two dependents who are father and mother. Accordingly, Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 22. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore under these heads Rs.66,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 4 + 10%) is awarded. 23. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 12,28,500/- 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 4 +10%) 1,76,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 4 + 10%) 66,000/- Total: 14,70,500/- 24. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,70,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.8,79,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. 25. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed. ii) The appeals filed by the claimants are allowed in part. iii) The common judgment and award dated 06.12.2012, passed in MVC Nos.467 and 468 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary, stands modified by holding that respondent No.1/owner is liable to pay compensation to the claimants in both the cases. iv) The claimants in MFA No.23412/2013 (MVC No.467/2012) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,49,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.9,13,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv) The claimants in MFA No.23412/2013 (MVC No.467/2012) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,49,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.9,13,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. v) The claimants in MFA No.23413/2013 (MVC No.468/2012) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,70,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.8,79,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. vi) The liability fastened on the Insurance Company is set aside. vii) The owner-respondent No.1 shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in both the cases. viii) The order with regard to apportionment of compensation, deposit and release of amount would be as per order of Tribunal. ix) Send a copy of this judgment and award along with TCR to the Tribunal. x) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. xi) No order as to costs. xii) Draw award accordingly.