JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. As the present miscellaneous appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 24.06.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bundi (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal’), the same are being heard and decided by the instant common judgment. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’), challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 22.07.2008 passed by learned Tribunal whereby, the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed. Aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 22.07.2008, appeals were filed before this Court and vide common order dated 23.05.2011, the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the findings of the learned tribunal and remanded back the claim petitions to be decided afresh by the learned Tribunal. 3. Learned Tribunal vide common judgment and award dated 24.06.2017 decided the claim petitions afresh in terms of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. Hence, the present appeals were filed. This is the second round of litigation against the earlier award dated 22.07.2008. 4. The following appeals have been filed by the claimants- appellants challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 24.06.2017 on the ground of enhancement of the compensation, which will be decided later in this judgment:- TOTAL 17 APPEALS : S.B. C.M.A. Nos.95/2018, 115/2018, 116/2018, 118/2018, 131/2018, 135/2018, 154/2018, 155/2018, 156/2018, 157/2018, 180/2018, 181/2018, 182/2018, 183/2018, 191/2018, 210/2018 & 340/2018. 5. The following appeals have been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 24.06.2017:- Total 24 Appeals: S.B. C.M.A. No.5344/2017, 5259/2017, 5260/2017, 5261/2017, 5262/2017, 5263/2017, 5264/2017, 5266/2017, 5267/2017, 5280/2017, 5281/2017, 5282/2017, 5283/2017, 5284/2017, 5285/2017, 5286/2017, 5287/2017, 5288/2017, 5289/2017, 5334/2017, 5335/2017, 5336/2017, 5337/2017 & 5338/2017. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgement and award dated 24.06.2017, primarily on four grounds, that:- 1. the offending bus was being plied on a route for which it did not possess a valid permit; 2. the number of passengers travelling in the bus exceeded its sanctioned seating capacity; and 3. the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 4. the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award and judgement while considering higher future prospects for claimants. 7. the number of passengers travelling in the bus exceeded its sanctioned seating capacity; and 3. the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 4. the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award and judgement while considering higher future prospects for claimants. 7. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the offending bus was being operated on a route not covered by the permit, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 8. Whereas, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the statutory defence circumscribed by Section 149(2) of the Act of 1988 does not confer a general right upon the insurer to avoid liability on every violation of the permit. The condition contemplated under the aforesaid provision is breach of a specified condition of the insurance policy and not breach of the permit conditions. 9. The Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of R.K. College Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Raj 393 , has held as under:– “12. It is to be imbibed that an Insurance Company assumes a particular risk as per the terms of the insurance contract; and in the vehicular insurance, such contract of insurance is conditioned by the requirements of statute particularly those of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An Insurance Company that has assumed the risk in relation to a motor vehicle, while resisting any claim for compensation wherein any amount of award is to become payable by it, has been permitted to defend the action on limited grounds as enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Act. The clause permitting a defence to the insurer in relation to the permit for use of a transport vehicle as contained in Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) could be read, omitting other phrases not relevant for the present purpose, in the following manner:- “(2)…….and an insurer ……shall be entitled …… to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:— (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle— …. …. …. (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle,” 13. …. …. (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle,” 13. It is at once clear that the defence available to the vehicle insurer is NOT of violation of terms of permit BUT of breach of some specified conditions of insurance policy, as detailed out in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. In relation to the permit for a transport vehicle, the breach (of insurance policy) envisaged by the statutory provision is of using the vehicle for a purpose other than that allowed by the permit.” 10. As per the judgment in R.K. College (supra), the distinction between violation of permit conditions and breach of policy conditions has been clearly expounded. The defence available to the insurer is not of violation of the terms of permit but of breach of some specified condition of the policy as enumerated under Section 149(2) of the Act of 1988. In the present case, except alleging that the bus was operating on a route not covered by the permit, the appellant has failed to establish any breach of a specific policy condition excluding such use. In absence of proof of a fundamental breach falling within Section 149(2) of the Act of 1988, the insurer cannot escape liability. Therefore, this contention of Insurance Company is not tenable. 11. The second contention argued by the learned counsel for the appellant relating to overloading of passengers has been conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam reported in (2007) 7 SCC 445 . The Apex Court, in this case, while dealing with the extent of insurer’s liability in such cases, has clearly held as under: “15. Section 58 of the Act makes special provisions in regard to transport vehicles. Sub-section (2) provides that a registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle, shall enter in the record of registration and in the certificate of registration various particulars. Clause (d) provides that if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided. Thus the registration of the vehicle, which alone makes it usable on the road, records the number of passengers to be carried and the certificate of registration also contains that entry. Clause (d) provides that if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided. Thus the registration of the vehicle, which alone makes it usable on the road, records the number of passengers to be carried and the certificate of registration also contains that entry. So, an Insurance Company insuring the passengers carried in a vehicle in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, can only insure such number of passengers as are shown in the certificate of registration. 16. The position is reinforced by Section 72 of the Act, which deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-section (2) provides that when a permit is decided to be granted for a stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority can attach to the permit one or more of the conditions specified therein. Clause (vii) is the condition regarding the maximum number of passengers that may be carried in a stage carriage. Overloading also invites a consequence which can be termed penal. Section 86 of the Act provides for cancellation of a permit if any condition contained in the permit is breached. Therefore, the apparent wide words of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act have to be construed harmoniously with the other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 58 and 72 of the Act. 17. As early as in 1846, Dr. Lushington in R.v.Eduljee Byramjee [(1846) 3 MIA 468] posited that to ascertain the true meaning of a clause in a statute the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself. This Court has accepted this approach in innumerable cases. Thus, the expression “any passenger” must be understood as passenger authorised to be carried in the vehicle and “use of the vehicle” as permitted use of the vehicle. Affording of insurance for more number of passengers than permitted, would be illegal since in that case the manifest intention would be the overloading of the vehicle, something not contemplated by law. Thus, it is not possible to accept a contention that the insurance can be taken to cover more passengers than permitted by the certificate of registration and the permit as a stage carriage and that it will cover all the passengers overloaded. Thus, it is not possible to accept a contention that the insurance can be taken to cover more passengers than permitted by the certificate of registration and the permit as a stage carriage and that it will cover all the passengers overloaded. Of course, in these cases, there is no dispute that the insurance cover took in only the permitted number of passengers.” 12. The Hon’ble The Apex Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra) has further clarified that the insurer remains liable at least to the extent of the number of passengers covered under the policy and that the remedy, if any, of the insurer lies elsewhere, subject to the directions of the Tribunal. 13. Therefore, in the present matter, the learned Tribunal has fastened liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company in accordance with the settled legal position and this Court does not warrant any interference in this regard. 14. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. 15. As per the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. reported in (2024) 11 SCR 541 , the controversy with regard to holding a separate driving licence for the 'light motor vehicle' viz-a-viz the 'light goods vehicle' stands substantially addressed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held that the holder of a driving licence to drive the 'light motor vehicle' with an unladen weight which does not exceed 7,500 kg would also be competent to drive the 'transport vehicle', thus, there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle' of such class. Later on, the same issue was referred to the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court comprising of 5 Judges in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) and the relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 131. Later on, the same issue was referred to the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court comprising of 5 Judges in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) and the relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment." 16. It is evident from the perusal of the record that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 2283 kg, which is well below the statutory limit of 7500 kg as prescribed for a 'Light Motor Vehicle'. Relying upon the aforesaid settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned cases pertaining to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and thereby, there is no breach of specified condition of the policy. 17. Relying upon the aforesaid settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned cases pertaining to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and thereby, there is no breach of specified condition of the policy. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company has further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying addition towards Future Prospects in an inconsistent manner, therefore, 50% of the income was added where the injured/deceased was below 40 years of age, 30% where between 40 and 50 years, and 15% where between 50 and 60 years. It has also been urged that in cases where the deceased/injured was up to 15 years of age, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier and future prospects on the basis of the age of the mother/ father/legal representative, which, according to the appellant, is not in consonance with settled principles. 18. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company to the limited extent of standardisation of the addition towards Future Prospects. In order to ensure uniformity, consistency and adherence to the prevailing legal principles governing assessment of compensation, this Court deems it appropriate to apply a uniform addition towards 'Future Prospects' in all the connected matters as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), irrespective of minor variations adopted by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the awards under the head of Future Prospects stand modified to the extent that the income of the deceased/injured in each claim petition shall be enhanced by 40%, and the compensation shall be re-calculated on that basis wherever required. The impugned judgment and award dated 24.06.2017 passed by learned Tribunal stand modified to this extent. 19. Therefore, in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.K. College (supra), Anjana Shyam (supra), Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the present appeals, hence, the same are liable to be partly allowed. 20. Consequently, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company being devoid of merit are hereby partly allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20. Consequently, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company being devoid of merit are hereby partly allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. S.B. C.M.A. Nos.183/2018, 157/2018, 156/2018, 115/2018, 155/2018, 131/2018, 210/2018, 135/2018, 181/2018, 95/2018 & 191/2018- 21. In the above-mentioned appeals filed by the claimants- appellants wherein the deceased persons were below the age of 15 years, challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 24.06.2017 on the ground of enhancement of the compensation, the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased/injured below 15 years of age as Rs. 750/- per month, and for injured/deceased above 15 years of age, determined monthly income as per the prevalent minimum wages rates prescribed by Rajasthan Government, payable on the date of accident, i.e., Rs. 884/- per month. 22. Further, for injured/deceased below 40 years of age, 50% of the income was added towards future prospects; for those between 40 and below 50 years, 30%; and for those between 50 and up to 60 years, 15 per cent of the income was added under the head of 'Future Prospects'. Where the deceased/injured is up to 15 years of age, his/her own expenses were taken as 1/2 of the income, and the multiplier and the Future Prospect was applied on the basis of the age of the 'Mother' (if alive, otherwise 'Father') or any other legal representative. 23. To decide the above-mentioned appeals, this Court relies upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 & (2) Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 14444/2025)] . The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai (supra) has held that:- “ 15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s interference, applying well-established principles of law.” 24. Relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), this Court deems it proper to consider the deceased children under the category of 'skilled worker'. Moreover, considering the year of the accident i.e 1996, no minimum wage rates were specifically prescribed for the year 1996 as the State Government revised the minimum wage rates in the year 1998 right after the year 1994. In the year 1994, the prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is Rs.34 and in the year 1998, the prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is Rs.50. In such circumstances, based on the then prevalent minimum wage, this court deems it appropriate to determine the daily income of the deceased children under the skilled category as Rs.42/- and accordingly, monthly income as Rs.42 x 30 i.e. Rs. 1260/-. 25. According to the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% increase in 'Future Prospect' of the monthly income is to be considered while taking the age of the deceased children into account. Accordingly, 40% of Rs.1260 is Rs.504/-. After adding this amount of 40% increment to the monthly income of the deceased children, the total monthly income comes to Rs.504+Rs.1260= Rs. 1764/-, which will be the basis for determining compensation. 26. Considering the fact that in these appeals, age of the deceased children were unmarried therefore, 1/2 part of the income assessed of the deceased children is to be deducted. 1/2 X Rs. 1764/- = Rs. 882/-, which after deducting from the assessed monthly income, results in amount of Rs. 882/- as dependent income. 27. Based on the principle propounded in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), a multiplier of 15 should be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased children as below 15 years. 28. Accordingly, on the basis of the deceased children's monthly income of Rs.882/-, the total loss of dependent income to the appellant comes to Rs. 882 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 1,58,760/-, which the appellant is entitled to receive. 29. Principle of awarding a sum of Rs. 28. Accordingly, on the basis of the deceased children's monthly income of Rs.882/-, the total loss of dependent income to the appellant comes to Rs. 882 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 1,58,760/-, which the appellant is entitled to receive. 29. Principle of awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head to each dependent has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In such circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head (filial) to the appellants representing the claimants. 30. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellants representing the claimants under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, under the head of funeral expenses, this Court, does not warrant any interference as the sum is awarded in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate to the appellants. Therefore, under the head of loss of estate, this Court, in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellants. 31. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- under the head of litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 1000/- under the head of transport convenience. However, as per the directions propounded in Pranay Sethi (supra), the consortium heads includes only loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. Therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to award a separate amount in terms of litigation expenses and transport convenience. 32. Hence, in deciding the following appeals filed by the claimants-appellants to enhance the compensation; wherein the age of the deceased is below 15 years, this Court deems it proper to apply the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) & Pranay Sethi (supra):- In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.183/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Kusnuma was stated to be 8 years old and is survived by only her sister. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to appellant) Total 40,000/- 3. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to appellant) Total 40,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4. Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,59,000/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 69,760/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.157/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Sabina was stated to be 11 years old and is survived by both her parents. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to both parents) 80,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4. Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this Court 2,68,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,40,700/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 28,060/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.156/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Reshma Bano was stated to be 13 years old and is survived by both her parents. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.156/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Reshma Bano was stated to be 13 years old and is survived by both her parents. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to both parents) 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,68,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,40,700/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 28,060/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.115/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Imamuddin was stated to be 8 years old and is survived by only his father. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,57,900/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 70,860/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,57,900/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.131/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Shameena Bano was stated to be 9 years old and is survived by only her father. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as follows:- S.No. Heads Amount No. (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,90,700/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 38,060/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,90,700/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.210/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Farzana Bano was stated to be 10 years old and is survived by both her parents. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: S.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to bothparents) 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,68,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,40,700/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 28,060/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. 2,68,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.135/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Sabbo @ Shama was stated to be 5 years old and is survived by only her father. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,57,900/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 70,860/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,57,900/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.95/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Reshma was stated to be 12 years old and is survived by only her sister. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,59,000/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 69,760/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.191/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Saddam @ Nadeem Hussain was stated to be 6 years old and is survived by only his father. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,90,700/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 38,060/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,90,700/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.155/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Pinky was stated to be 5 years old and is survived by only her sister. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,59,000/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 69,760/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.181/2018- At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child Kumari Razia was stated to be 10 years old and is survived by only her sister. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,28,760/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 1,59,000/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 69,760/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 180/2018, 340/2018, 154/2018, 182/2018, 118/2018 and 116/2018- 33. In the above-mentioned appeals, the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased persons below 40 years of age as Rs. 884/- per month as per the prevalent minimum wages rates prescribed by Rajasthan Government, payable on the date of accident i.e., 13.11.1996. Further, for injured/deceased below 40 years of age, 50% of the income was erroneously added towards future prospects by the learned Tribunal. 34. The above-mentioned appeals will be decided based on the principles of law laid down the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:- 1) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 , 2) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. 34. The above-mentioned appeals will be decided based on the principles of law laid down the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:- 1) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 , 2) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 3) Sarla Verma (supra) & 4) Pranay Sethi (supra). 35. Considering the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, all the deceased persons were stated to be below 40 years of age, therefore, considering the year of the accident i.e. 1996, no minimum wage rates were specifically prescribed for the year 1996 as the State Government revised the minimum wage rates in the year 1998 right after the year 1994. In the year 1994, the prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is Rs.34 and in the year 1998, the prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is Rs.50. In such circumstances, based on the then prevalent minimum wage, this court deems it appropriate to determine the daily income of the deceased persons under the skilled category as Rs.42/- and accordingly monthly income as Rs.42 x 30 i.e. Rs. 1260/-. 36. According to the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% increase in future prospect of the monthly income is to be considered while taking the age of the deceased persons into account. Accordingly, 40% of Rs.1260 is Rs.504/-. After adding this amount of 40% increment to the monthly income of the deceased persons, the total income is Rs.504+Rs.1260 =Rs. 1764/-, which will be the basis for determining compensation. 37. Based on the principle propounded in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), a multiplier should be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased persons. 38. Principle of awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head to each dependent has been laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). In such circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head (filial/spousal/parental) to each dependent. 39. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellants under the head of funeral expenses. In such circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head (filial/spousal/parental) to each dependent. 39. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellants under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, under the head of funeral expenses, this Court does not warrant any interference as the sum is awarded in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate to the appellants. Therefore, under the head of loss of estate, this Court, in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-to the appellants. 40. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- under the head of litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 1000/- under the head of transport convenience. However, as per the directions propounded in Pranay Sethi (supra), the consortium heads includes only loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. Therefore, this court does not deem it just and proper to award a separate amount in terms of litigation expenses and transport convenience. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 118/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, there were 2 dependents of the deceased i.e. her husband and a son. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, 1/3rd of the total income i.e Rs. 1764 which is inclusive of future prospect, comes to Rs.588, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1176/- as the monthly income available to the dependents. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 37 years, multiplier of 15 is to be applied. Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1176 X 12 X 15 = Rs.2,11,680/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the husband and the son are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each under the spousal and parental consortium respectively, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1176 X 12 X 15 = Rs.2,11,680/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the husband and the son are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each under the spousal and parental consortium respectively, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 2,11,680/- 2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent) 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 3,21,680/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,75,300/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 46,380/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs. 2,75,300/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,21,680/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 180/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Nanne Khan was aged 40 years. The deceased left behind 4 dependents, which includes his wife and three minor children. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/4th of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents are 4. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/4th comes to Rs. 441/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,323/- as the monthly income available to the dependents. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, multiplier of 15 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1,323 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 2,38,140/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, multiplier of 15 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1,323 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 2,38,140/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the wife is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the spousal consortium and each of the three children is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental consortium, totaling to Rs. 1,60,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 2,38,140/- 2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent (wife + 3 children) 1,60,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 4,28,140/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 3,85,000/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 43,140/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.3,85,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,28,140/-. Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Rizwan was aged 18 years. The deceased was unmarried and his father is the only dependent. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/2 of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was unmarried. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/2 comes to Rs. 882/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 882/- as the monthly income available to the dependent. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years, multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). 882/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 882/- as the monthly income available to the dependent. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years, multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellant comes to Rs. 882 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 1,90,512/-, which the appellant is entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the father is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the filial consortium. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 1,90,512/- 2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to the father (filial) 40,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 2,60,512/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,24,200/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 36,312/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,24,200/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,60,512/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 340/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Nafeesa Bano was aged 25 years. The deceased left behind her minor daughter and the husband as dependents. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as there are two dependents. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years, multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 2,54,016/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the husband is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the spousal consortium and the daughter is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental consortium, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 2,54,016/- 2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent (husband + daughter) 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 3,64,016/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,99,200/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 64,816/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,99,200/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,64,016/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 154/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Sanno Hafeez was aged 27 years. The deceased left behind 2 dependents, his mother and minor daughter. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and in Pranay Sethi supra, 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents is 2. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and in Pranay Sethi supra, 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents is 2. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income available to the dependents. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 27 years, multiplier of 17 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 17 = Rs. 2,40,096/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the mother is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the filial consortium and the daughter is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental consortium, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 2,40,096/- 2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent (mother + daughter) 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 3,50,096/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,86,300/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 63,796/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,86,300/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,50,096/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 182/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Smt. Shahzadi was aged 25 years. The deceased left behind her minor daughter and her husband, as dependents. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 182/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Smt. Shahzadi was aged 25 years. The deceased left behind her minor daughter and her husband, as dependents. In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents are two. Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income available to the dependents. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years, multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellant comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 2,54,016/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive. Under the head of consortium, the daughter and the husband are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each, under the parental consortium and spousal consortium respectively. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1 Loss of Future income 2,54,016/- 2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each to the daughter and husband 80,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of Estate 15,000/- The amount of compensation determined by this court 3,64,016/- The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal 2,24,200/- Difference in compensation amount after enhancement 1,39,816/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,24,200/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,64,016/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. 41. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. 41. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also argued that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 21 and the Insurance Company has received the premium covering the risk of only 21 occupants of the offending vehicle. It is an admitted case that at the time of accident, 56 persons were sitting in the offending vehicle which is much more than the seating capacity of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company is liable only to pay compensation up to 21 occupants and is not liable to pay any compensation to any claimant above the number of 21 occupants. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration this aspect and applying the ratio, decided in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra) and has held as below :- ^^bl laca/k esa geus ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh uthj 2007 ,-lh-ts- 2129 us'kuy ba';ksjsal daiuh fy0 cuke vatuk ';ke o vU; ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA bl uthj esa ;g izfriknu fd;k x;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa chek daiuh dks muds }kjk ns; ekeyksa ¼ftrus yksxksa dk izhfe;e fy;k x;k gS½ dh jkf'k olwy dh tk ldrh gSA ¼;s vf/kdre /ku jkf'k ds ekeys gksaxs½ mDr ekeyksa dh /ku jkf'k chek daiuh ls ,dtkbZ izkIr djds bl jkf'k dk lHkh ekeyksa ds ihfM+rksa ds e/; vkuqikfrd :i ls forj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA** 42. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere in the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to liability of the Insurance Company and disbursement of the claim among the claimants. 43. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants-appellants as well as appellant-Insurance Company are disposed of, in terms of the discussion made hereinabove. 44. Copy of this order be placed separately in each file. 45. Stay applications and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.