JUDGMENT : Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. MFA Nos.104122, 104123, 104124 and 104125 of 2019 are filed by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 18.07.2019 passed in MVC Nos.536, 537, 538 and 539 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-XIV, Mudhol[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short], questioning the liability fastened on it to pay the compensation. Whereas, MFA Nos.100302 and 100304 of 2022 are filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 18.07.2019 passed in MVC Nos.536 and 537 of 2016 passed on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-XIV, Mudhol, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 15.05.2016 at about 9.30 a.m. they were traveling in the Auto Cab Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-48/3748 from Virapur village to Chickandi B.K. At that time, the driver of Tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-48/7855 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Auto Cab Rickshaw. Due to the said impact, some of the claimants have sustained injures and some of them have died. 4. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded compensation and an order of pay and recovery is made directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation at first instance, then recover it from the owner of the Tipper bearing Reg.NoKA- 48/7855. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in support of grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal argued that there is contributory negligence between the driver of Auto Cab Rickshaw and Tipper and the Tipper did not have permit. Hence, there is infraction of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought dismissal of the appeals filed by the insurer. 7. Upon perusing the documentary evidence available on record i.e., FIR, copy of complaint, copy of further statement of complainant, crime details form, postmortem report, MVI report, copy of charge sheet, it is proved that the driver of the Tipper was rash and negligent in driving the Tipper and caused the accident. 7. Upon perusing the documentary evidence available on record i.e., FIR, copy of complaint, copy of further statement of complainant, crime details form, postmortem report, MVI report, copy of charge sheet, it is proved that the driver of the Tipper was rash and negligent in driving the Tipper and caused the accident. From the evidence on record, it is proved that there is no contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Auto Cab Rickshaw. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the driver of the Tipper was fully responsible for the accident and caused the accident, this finding need not be interfered with. 8. The Tribunal after appreciating evidence on record at Ex.R-3/permit, held that the permit was valid from 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2021. The accident is caused on 15.05.2016. Therefore, as on the date and time of the accident, the Tipper was not having permit. This is rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Hence, the violation of conditions of insurance policy is proved. Therefore, the insurer of the Tipper is not liable to pay compensation. In this regard, though the Tribunal has ordered for pay and recover, but wrongly held that the owner and insurer of the Tipper are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. When the insurer of the Tipper is liable to be exonerated, there is no question of holding that both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In this regard, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is to be modified. 9. Since there is violation of conditions of insurance policy is proved, an order of pay and recover would be made. PAY AND RECOVERY: 10. In the present case, the Tribunal has observed that the Tipper was not having permit as on the date and time of the accident but committed an error fastening the liability both on owner and insurer of the Tipper. However, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act , when the Insurance Company established the fact that the Tipper was not having permit, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the Tipper. 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. 11. Just because an order of pay and recovery made that does not mean the insurance company is jointly and liable to pay compensation along with the owner of vehicle. As discussed above, the benefit of pay and recovery is to the third party. Since, the appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased in MFA Nos.100302 and 100304 of 2022, who are third parties to the Tipper, by exonerating the Insurance Company, it is directed that the Insurance Company to pay compensation at first instance then recover it from the owner of the Tipper. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in ordering pay and recovery. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: IN MFA NO.100304/2022 (MVC No.536/2016) 12. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1 Towards loss of estate 1,94,400/- 2 Towards consortium 40,000/- 3 Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total: 2,49,400/- 13. The Tribunal has 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. 14. The deceased was aged 21 years as on the date of accident and was coolie worker by profession. The accident is caused on 15.05.2016. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.8,750/- for the year 2016, 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 , (2017) 16 SCC 680 (PRANAY SETHI Case), considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS , (2017) 16 SCC 680 (PRANAY SETHI Case), considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. There are two dependants, who are husband and minor boy. Hence, 1/3 rd of the income is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed (2017) 16 SCC 680 and quantified at Rs.17,64,000/- (Rs.8,750/- + 40% x 2/3 x 12 x 18). 15. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS, 2018 ACJ 2782 (MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Case), 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 minor son. Accordingly, Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 16. 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. 17. 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 17,64,000/- 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: 18,85,000/- 18. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.2,49,400/- awarded by the tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. IN MFA NO.100302/2022 (MVC No.537/2019): 19. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1 Towards loss of dependency 6,48,000/- 2 Towards loss of estate 15,000/- 3 Towards loss of consortium 40,000/- 4 Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total: 7,18,000/- 20. IN MFA NO.100302/2022 (MVC No.537/2019): 19. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1 Towards loss of dependency 6,48,000/- 2 Towards loss of estate 15,000/- 3 Towards loss of consortium 40,000/- 4 Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total: 7,18,000/- 20. 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. 21. The deceased was aged 18 years as on the date of accident and was doing coolie work. The accident is caused on 15.05.2016. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.8,750/- for the year 2016, as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of PRANAY SETHI case (supra), considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore 50% of the income is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.13,23,000/- (Rs.8,750/- + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 18). 22. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Supra) 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’. 23. 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. 24. 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 13,23,000/- 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: 14,44,000/- 25. 24. 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 13,23,000/- 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: 14,44,000/- 25. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.7,18,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA Nos.104122, 104123, 104124 and 104125 of 2019 are filed by the Insurance Company are allowed. ii. MFA Nos.100302 and 100304 of 2022 are filed by the claimants are allowed-in-part. iii. The judgment and award dated 18.07.2019 passed in MVC Nos.536, 537, 538 and 539 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-XIV, Mudhol, stands modified. iv. The claimants in MFA No.100302/2022 (MVC No.537/2019) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. v. The claimants in MFA No100304/2022 (MVC No.536/2019) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. vi. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance in all cases and recover the same from the owner of the tipper. vii. The order with regard to apportionment of compensation, deposit and release of amount would be as per order of Tribunal. viii. Send a copy of this judgment and award along with TCR to the Tribunal. ix. The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. x. No order as to costs.