JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent no.3. 2. This petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by District Judge-XIV cum MACT Dhanbad in Title (M.V) No.40 of 2015. 3. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that this appeal has been preferred on two grounds. Firstly, the right to recovery has not been provided to the Insurance Company because of the fact that the permit was not decided by the learned Tribunal and he further submits that the calculation is not made in light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He submits that future prospects in light of the age is required to be 40% whereas the Tribunal has calculated as 50%. He further submits that under the head Funeral Expenses as well as loss of Consortium is further required to be modified in light of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(supra) . On this ground, he submits that the Award may kindly be modified. According to him, the permit was not before the learned Tribunal and in view of that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting the right to recovery to the appellant/Insurance company and he relied in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and he refers to para-24 of the said judgment which is as under: “ 24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 4. On the above grounds, he submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 5. Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are claimants and they are entitled for compensation and the learned court has rightly calculated the same and in view of that, there is no illegality in the Award. 6. Mr. 5. Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are claimants and they are entitled for compensation and the learned court has rightly calculated the same and in view of that, there is no illegality in the Award. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the grounds have not been proved by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal and in view of that there is no need for modification of the said Award. 7. The said compensation case filed before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 20.12.2014 after finishing his duty at the petrol pump Dinesh Rawani (deceased) was on his way to home. Suddenly, a TATA 407 Truck bearing Registration No.JH-10AG-9828 being driven in a very harsh and negligent manner dashed him from behind causing serious injuries to said Dinesh Rawani who succumbed to his injuries during treatment at hospital. The deceased was working at the Automobile Petrol Pump Dundidih upon Govindpur Tundi, Main Road, at District Giridih with an earning of Rs.8000/- per month. He was aged about 20 years and had bright future ahead. He was unmarried and the claimants are parents and dependent upon his earning and on this ground they had prayed for compensation of Rs.10 lacs. 8. The learned Tribunal has framed five issues to decide the claim. 9. Issue no.4 was with regard to valid driving license and tax token road permit at the time of accident. The learned court has considered that registration certificate of the vehicle is marked as Ext.5, Fitness certificate is marked at Ext.8, Tax token was marked as Ext.9 which was valid and Pollution certificate was also produced and the driving license was also marked as Ext.6 and in view of that the learned court has decided the said issue in favour of the appellants. 10. It appears from the judgment of the learned trial court that the said point has also not been placed by the Insurance company and if such plea was taken, the onus lies upon the Insurance company to prove the same and the Insurance company has failed to prove the same before the learned Tribunal. 11. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. 11. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance company in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others (supra) is concerned, in that case, specific plea and it was proved before the learned Tribunal and the permit was not there and in view of that the said judgment was passed, and in view of the facts of case in hand the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not helping the appellant/Insurance company. 12. The Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum in light of the judgment in the case of Pranay Shetty(supra) and in light of the ratio made therein, the future prospects is required to be calculated @ 40%, Funeral Expenses and loss of consortium in light of the said judgment should be Rs.70,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/-. 13. As such, the Award is hereby modified to the extent that in Future Prospect it will be 40% of Rs.96,000/- and Funeral Expenses and loss of consortium would be Rs.70,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/-. 14. The Award Dated 22.12.2016 is hereby, modified, to the above extent. 15. If the Award is not satisfied, the same will be satisfied in favour of the claimants within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. The statutory amount deposited before this Court will be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which will be used in satisfying the Award in favour of the claimants. 17. If certain amount is already paid, that will be deducted. 18. This appeal is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 19. Let trial court record be sent back to the learned court forthwith.