JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants/dependants, calling in question the judgment and award dated 22.02.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.855/2010, on the file of the Fast Track-I, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation and to fasten liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the deceased on 07.01.2010 at about 09.30 p.m. was attending his duties as per the direction of respondent No.1 and traveling in the concrete mixer vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/53/3767, the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle on Madhure-Rajanukunte road with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and near Itagal cross, the driver of the said vehicle lost control over the vehicle and toppled down on the road side ditch. Due to which, the deceased who was working as Supervisor and traveling in the cabin of the lorry concrete mixer vehicle, died. 3. Upon the claim petition filed, the Tribunal has awarded compensation by exonerating the respondent No.2- Insurance Company and fixed the liability on the respondent No.1-owner of the said vehicle. 4. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted and liability fastened on the owner of the vehicle in question, the appeal is preferred. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the offending vehicle in question admittedly is a concrete mixer having fitted to the lorry and the deceased was working as Supervisor under the instructions and direction of respondent No.1 and died in the accident. The insurance policy is commercial vehicle package policy as per Ex.R-2. Therefore, submitted that the insurance policy is commercial vehicle policy and irrespective of the premium collected or not, the risk of the employees traveling in the cabin of lorry is also covered. Therefore, submitted that insurance company is liable to pay compensation in view of Ex.R-2-Insurance policy and also prays for enhancement of compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submitted that though Ex.R-2 is a commercial vehicle package policy, but extra premium is not collected for Supervisor. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Since the deceased was working as Supervisor but not as a driver or cleaner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submitted that though Ex.R-2 is a commercial vehicle package policy, but extra premium is not collected for Supervisor. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Since the deceased was working as Supervisor but not as a driver or cleaner. Under the said insurance policy, premium of Rs.25/- is only collected for driver and cleaner but not to any other persons. Therefore, justified the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Further, learned counsel for respondent places reliance on the following judgments: i. The Divisional Manager V/s Sri.Davalsab S/o. Allabas Hunagund and Another , [MFA No.21726/2012 c/w MFA No.22434/2012] (Davalsab S/o. Allabas Hunagund’s Case) ii. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Saju P. Paul and Another, AIR 2013 SC 1064 (Saju P. Paul’s Case) iii. K. Thirupathi Reddy V/s Rajegowda and Others , [ILR 2010 KAR 3406] (Rajegowda Case) 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the offending vehicle is a concrete mixer lorry bearing Reg.No. KA-25/53/3767. The vehicle is a lorry having open body, fitted with concrete mixer. There is a cabin to the lorry enabling seating arrangement for driver, cleaner or any other employees. This is the nature of the vehicle, which is not disputed. Admittedly, Ex.R-2 is the insurance policy which is miscellaneous and the special type of vehicle-commercial vehicle package policy. RW-1, who is Legal Executive Officer of the insurance company admitted that the insurance policy is package policy. It is the evidence of RW-1 that the insurance company has collected only premium of Rs.25/- towards driver and cleaner. It is the contention of the insurance company that since the risk is not covered underEx.R-2-policy of covering Supervisor and the deceased was claiming to be Supervisor, his risk is not covered. Hence, the insurance company is trying to get exoneration from payment of compensation. 9. When the above said facts are admitted, when the insurance policy is the commercial vehicle package policy and if extra premium is not collected, covering the risk of other persons, other than driver and cleaner, risk of Supervisor is covered or not is question to be considered. 10. Learned counsel for respondent/insurance company by placing reliance on the above said judgments, contended the risk of deceased is not covered. 11. In SAJU P. PAUL (Supra), the question for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is at paragraph No.3. 10. Learned counsel for respondent/insurance company by placing reliance on the above said judgments, contended the risk of deceased is not covered. 11. In SAJU P. PAUL (Supra), the question for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is at paragraph No.3. In that case, the claimant was traveling in goods vehicle as a spare driver and he was employed as a driver in another vehicle owned by the owner of the vehicle under the policy of insurance. Under such circumstances, it was held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. However, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are different. 12. Here, in the instant case, the deceased supervisor was traveling in the lorry fitted with the concrete mixer and the insurance policy in the instant case is commercial vehicles package policy. Though payment of extra premium is not seen in the insurance policy for the supervisor, but the very nature of the policy is commercial comprehensive policy, which includes covering the risk of not only on machinery but also those traveling in the cabin of the lorry. This makes difference in the factual matrix in the cited case and in the instant case; therefore, the above decision is not helpful for the respondents. 13. Further, the Insurance Company placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of RAJEGOWDA (Supra). In this case also, the vehicle was a lorry. The insurance policy is a contractor’s plant and machinery policy. In the above said case, it was held that as per the India Motor Tariff Regulations, there is a provision to cover the risk of the accident if the accident is caused by the machinery issued under a non-motor policy, provided liability of third party is covered and premium is paid on such policies. It can be inferred from the facts and circumstances gathered from the cited judgments, though the nature of policy is not discussed, but it could be said that the insurance policy is proved to be as a non-motor policy. However, in the present case, the insurance policy is commercial vehicles package policy; this makes difference in the present case and in the above cited case. Hence, the above said judgment is not helpful to the respondents. 14. However, in the present case, the insurance policy is commercial vehicles package policy; this makes difference in the present case and in the above cited case. Hence, the above said judgment is not helpful to the respondents. 14. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DAVALSAB S/O. ALLABAS HUNAGUND (Supra). The facts in this case are that the claimant had traveled as a gratuitous passenger, but not as an employee of respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle. In the above cited case, the claimant traveled in Ashok Leyland Tanker lorry as an escort, security person and in the accident, the claimant sustained injuries. In that case, the grounds raised by the Insurance Company are that the claimant was not an employee under the owner of Ashok Leyland Tanker lorry, but as a security guard of some other firm/agency, he was engaged in the tanker lorry for escorting only; hence, he is not employee so as to cover risk under the insurance policy. Therefore, in that context, the claimant would not be considered as 3 rd party hence, the insurer was exonerated. 15. Here in the present case, the nature of policy is commercial vehicles package policy, which covers the risk comprehensively and the deceased being an employee of respondent No.1, working in the capacity as supervisor and the services of supervisor being essential for management and security purposes had traveled in the said lorry. Therefore, because of the reason that the insurance policy is commercial vehicles package policy as admitted by RW-1 Legal Executive of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, the covering of risk is comprehensive in nature. Therefore, when premium is collected for driver and cleaner but not collected for supervisor, it cannot be a ground to exonerate the Insurance Company. Just because the claimant was a supervisor, this makes difference in the present case and in the above cited case. Therefore, the above cited case is not helpful. 16. Therefore, when premium is collected for driver and cleaner but not collected for supervisor, it cannot be a ground to exonerate the Insurance Company. Just because the claimant was a supervisor, this makes difference in the present case and in the above cited case. Therefore, the above cited case is not helpful. 16. Considering the fact that admittedly the deceased was working as supervisor in the Grade Mix Company and the vehicle is a Ashok Leyland Tanker lorry fitted with the concrete mixerand as per Ex.R-2/insurance policy, it is a commercial vehicles package policy and the deceased had traveled in the cabin fitted with the concrete mixture; therefore, as per Ex.R-2/insurance policy, the risk of the occupant is also covered besides driver and cleaner. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.101761 of 2019 connected with MFA Crob.No.1000024 of 2021 passed on 08.04.2025 between ROYAL SUNDRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O.HARI GAVADI AND OTHERS, has held that the risk of an occupant in the vehicle is also covered under the comprehensive/package policy. In the present case, the deceased being a supervisor, sitting inside the cabin, therefore, he is not a gratuitous passenger, but an employee of respondent No.1 and it is a matter of record that admittedly Ex.R-2 is a commercial vehicles package policy and the policy issued is a package policy as tested by RW-1, who is the Legal Executive of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the risk of the deceased is also covered. Hence, the Insurance Company would not be exonerated from its liability. Therefore, the Tribunal has not appreciated these evidence in the background of factual matrix in the case resulting in a perverse judgment by wrongly fastening liability on the owner/respondent No.1. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner/respondent No.1. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 18. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency. 3,60,000 2. Love and affection. 10,000 3. Loss of estate. 5,000 4. Funeral expenses. 10,000 Total: 3,85,000 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. Loss of dependency. 3,60,000 2. Love and affection. 10,000 3. Loss of estate. 5,000 4. Funeral expenses. 10,000 Total: 3,85,000 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 was aged 24 years as on the date of accident and was a supervisor by profession. The accident is caused on 07.01.2010. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.5,500/- for the year 2010, 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. The deceased was a 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 18. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.8,31,600/-(Rs.5,500/- + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 18). 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 , [ 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 four dependents who are father, mother and brothers. Accordingly, Rs.1,72,000/-(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.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 +10%) is awarded. 23. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency. Rs.8,31,600/- 2. Towards loss of consortium. (Rs.40,000/- x 4 + 10%) Rs.1,76,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. (Rs.15,000/- x 2 + 10%) Rs.33,000/- Total: Rs.10,40,600/- 24. 23. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency. Rs.8,31,600/- 2. Towards loss of consortium. (Rs.40,000/- x 4 + 10%) Rs.1,76,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. (Rs.15,000/- x 2 + 10%) Rs.33,000/- Total: Rs.10,40,600/- 24. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,40,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.3,85,000/- 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. 25. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 22.02.2012, passed in MVC No.855/2010 on the file of Fast Tract-I, Dharwad, stands modified. iii. The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,40,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v. The order with regard to apportionment of compensation, deposit and release of amount would be as per order of Tribunal. vi. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. vii. No order as to costs. viii. Draw award accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of.