JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals, for involvement of common question of facts and law to be adjudicated on the basis of similar evidence, are being decided together by this judgment. 2. Both appeals have been preferred against the award passed by concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in two different claim petitions preferred by respective claimants on account of the death of two occupants of the car being driven by driver Rai Singh, which was owned by Rajinder Kumar. 3. Common facts in these appeals are that on 02.10.2015, at about 7:27 a.m., Manoj Kumar (deceased-victim in FAO No. 64 of 2022), Mohinder Singh (deceased-victim in FAO No. 45 of 2022), Kuldeep Singh, Rajinder Singh (owner of the vehicle) and Rai Singh (driver) were travelling to Shimla in Nano Car No. HP-68A-Temp.5592 and when the car reached near Tyala Da Ghat, near Bhota, in District Hamirpur, it struck with a truck No. HP-24D-2342 from back side, which was parked on kutcha gola outside the metalled road, leading to the death of Manoj Kumar and Mohinder Singh on the spot. Their postmortem was conducted. Regarding the incident, FIR No. 178, dated 02.10.2015, was registered in Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P. 4. FAO No. 45 of 2022 4(i). Dependents of Mohinder Singh preferred Claim Petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur by filing Claim Petition No. MACT No. 44 of 2016, titled as Pushap Lata & Ors vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors., wherein after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants amounting to Rs. 63,11,599/- with interest therein @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation with direction that the compensation shall be paid to the claimants by Insurance Company being insurer. This award has been assailed by filing FAO No. 45 of 2022. 4(ii). Deceased Mohinder Singh was serving as Senior Assistant in HRTC and his monthly salary was Rs. 38,105/-, as is evident from Last Pay Certificate Ex.PW1/A, issued by the Regional Manager, HRTC. 4(iii) Deceased was 45 years old. Claimant No. 1 is wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are children and claimant No. 4 is mother of deceased Mohinder Singh. 4(iv) FIR in this matter has been placed on record as Ext. PW3/A, postmortem report has been placed as Ext. 4(iii) Deceased was 45 years old. Claimant No. 1 is wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are children and claimant No. 4 is mother of deceased Mohinder Singh. 4(iv) FIR in this matter has been placed on record as Ext. PW3/A, postmortem report has been placed as Ext. PW4/A. Insurance of the vehicle and Sale Certificate have been placed on record by owner of the vehicle i.e. RW-1 Rajinder Kumar as Ext. R-1 and Ext. R-2. 5. FAO No. 64 of 2022 5(i). Dependents of Manoj Kumar preferred Claim Petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, District Kangra, H.P. by filing Claim Petition No. MACT No. 65 of 2016, titled as Vijay Kumari & Ors vs. Rai Singh & Ors., wherein, after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants amounting to Rs. 65,30,488/- with interest therein @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation with direction that the compensation shall be paid to the claimants by Insurance Company being insurer with right to recover the same from the owner of the car Rajinder Kumar. This award has been assailed by filing FAO No. 64 of 2022. 5(ii). Deceased Manoj Kumar, in this matter, was serving as Traffic Manager in HRTC and his monthly salary was Rs.57,962/-, as is evident from Last Pay Certificate Ex.PW3/A, issued by the Regional Manager, HRTC. 5(iii) Deceased was 53 years old. Claimant No. 1 is wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are children and claimant No. 4 is mother of deceased Manoj Kumar. 5(iv) FIR in this matter has been placed on record as Ext. PW5/A, postmortem report as Ext. PW6/A, Insurance of the vehicle and sale certificate have been placed on record by owner of the vehicle RW-1 Rajinder Kumar as Ext. RW2/A, RW2/B, Temporary Registration Certificate Ext. RW2/C and Retail Invoice as Ext. RW2/D. 6. Admitted proved facts in both cases are that owner- Rajinder Kumar had purchased Nano Car on 10.06.2015 with Temporary Registration Certificate bearing No. HP-68A-Temp. 5592, which was valid for 30 days i.e. till 09.07.2015. RW2/A, RW2/B, Temporary Registration Certificate Ext. RW2/C and Retail Invoice as Ext. RW2/D. 6. Admitted proved facts in both cases are that owner- Rajinder Kumar had purchased Nano Car on 10.06.2015 with Temporary Registration Certificate bearing No. HP-68A-Temp. 5592, which was valid for 30 days i.e. till 09.07.2015. Either before expiry of the temporary registration or thereafter till the date of accident i.e. 02.10.2015, no steps were taken by the owner for registration of Car including filing an application as provided under Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989, and temporary registration of the vehicle as provided under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act had expired on 09.07.2015 and the vehicle was being plied on the road without having any registration despite the mandatory requirement for plying the vehicle is to get it registered before drive the vehicle on public place. 7. Sections 39 and 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are relevant in this regard, which read as under:- “39. Necessity for registration. - No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. ….. 43. Temporary Registration-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40, owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other authority as may be prescribed by the State Government to have the motor vehicle temporarily registered and such authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration and temporary registration mark in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Central Government. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 8. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 8. In this regard, National Insurance Company has preferred appeal on the ground that the seating capacity of the car was four persons whereas at the time of accident five persons were travelling in the offending vehicle; the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy without registration as temporary registration of vehicle was valid for a period of one month only and the temporary registration was not renewable, but before expiry of that vehicle was required to be registered permanently; that truck driver as well as owner of the truck and insurer of the truck have not been impleaded as party; that MACT has committed an error by not deducting income tax from the assessed income of the deceased; in alternative to allow the appeal by modifying the award by reserving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle. 9. The owner has preferred the appeal (FAO No. 64 of 2022) on the ground that vehicle was duly insured; that driver was having valid driving licence; that there was no material violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy nor such any contention was raised by the Insurance Company; that amount of compensation has been assessed on higher side; that liability on the owner has been imposed against the settled law; that appellant-owner could not get the vehicle registered permanently within stipulated period due to unavoidable adverse family circumstances of the appellant as his father and wife were suffering from serious ailments at the relevant time; that there was a total loss of vehicle and there is no casual connection of non-registration of vehicle with liability of Insurance Company to compensate the claimants. 10. From the evidence on record, it stands proved that at the time of accident there was no registration of the vehicle either temporary or permanent. 10. From the evidence on record, it stands proved that at the time of accident there was no registration of the vehicle either temporary or permanent. In this regard, pronouncement of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 324 , is relevant, wherein it has been held that using of vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the M.V. Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract. Therefore, there is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract by the owner in the present case. Therefore, plea of the appellant-owner in FAO No. 64 of 2022 is not sustainable because ailment of father as well as wife of the owner not a valid ground for not applying for permanent registration of the vehicle within stipulated period. There is no such provision in the Act or Rules for dispensing with the mandatory requirement of registration of vehicle to ply it on public road. 11. Therefore, plea of the owner of the vehicle in this regard is not sustainable and he is liable to suffer for plying vehicle on the road without registration. Therefore, MACT, Kangra at Dharamshala has not committed any mistake by directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants but with right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 12. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 , has held that Insurance Company cannot absolve of its liability of initially satisfying the award passed in favour of third party with right to recover from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. 13. In the similar circumstances, judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed in FAO (MVA) No. 564 of 2018, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Kamal Kishore & Ors,; and judgment dated 29.03.2022, passed in FAO No. 124 of 2018, titled as Reliance General Insurance vs. Swarna Devi & Ors. by Coordinate Benches of this Court, are also relevant wherein it has been held that in a situation like present case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation payable to the third party. 14. by Coordinate Benches of this Court, are also relevant wherein it has been held that in a situation like present case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation payable to the third party. 14. It is also relevant to record that in FAO No. 64 of 2022 also, the National Insurance Company is party and in the said case Insurance Company has not assailed the award passed by the MACT, Kangra, whereby Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation to the claimants with right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 15. The grounds for appeal referred by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in FAO No. 45 of 2022 with regard to travelling of one person in excess than the seating capacity of the car is not sustainable as it has no nexus with the cause of accident and there are only claim petitioners. Further, it is not fundamental breach of terms of the Policy. 16. The plea, regarding the non-impleadment of truck driver, truck owner and insurer of the said truck, is also not available to the Insurance Company because, though in FAO No. 64 of 2022, there is no reference of truck in the claim petition, however, in the FIR, as placed and proved on record in the said case as Ext. PW5/A, there is reference of truck No HP-24D-2342 parked on the extreme left side of the road beyond the metalled road. Despite that Insurance Company has not assailed the said award by filing an independent appeal or otherwise. Therefore, this ground taken in FAO No. 45 of 2022 is not available to the Insurance Company, in view of act, conduct, deed and acquiescence on the part of Insurance Company. 17. The correctness of quantum of compensation in both appeals has to be considered in the light of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.  Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 340. Quantum in FAO (MVA) No. 45 of 2022 18. Claimants have duly proved the monthly salary at the time of death of deceased Mohinder Singh as Rs. 38,105/- and he was 45 years old and there are four dependents/claimants in the petition. 19. Quantum in FAO (MVA) No. 45 of 2022 18. Claimants have duly proved the monthly salary at the time of death of deceased Mohinder Singh as Rs. 38,105/- and he was 45 years old and there are four dependents/claimants in the petition. 19. By applying the ratio of Pranay Sethi and Magma’s cases supra, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in this appeal shall be as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculations 1 Gross Annual Salary @Rs.38105/- per month Rs.38105 * 12 = 4,57,260 2 Annual Dependency after 1/4th Deduction Rs.4,57,260 – 25% = Rs.3,42,945 3 Future Prospects @ 30% Rs.3,42,945 + 30% = Rs.4,45,829 4 Income Tax, after deducting Rs.2,50,000/- (exempted income) @10% for 13 years. Rs.4,57,260 - Rs.2,50,000 = Rs.2,07,260 Rs.2,07,260 * 10% = Rs.20,726 Rs.20,726 * 13 = Rs.2,69,438 5 Multiplier applicable at the time of death Age of the victim was 45 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 was applicable in terms of judgments in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases. Rs.4,45,829 * 14 = Rs.62,41,606 6 Income after deducting Income Tax Rs.62,41,606 – Rs.2,69,438 = Rs.59,72,168 7 Loss of Dependency Rs.59,72,168 8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 9 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 10 Consortium @ 40,000/- to each of the claimants Rs.1,60,000 Total Rs.61,62,168 20. In view of Pranay Sethi and Magma’s cases all claimants shall be entitled for consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each. The remaining amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants in the following terms:- Claimant Percentage Claimant No. 1 40% Claimants No. 2 to 4 20% each 21. The impugned award dated 26.10.2021 passed by MACT, Hamirpur in MAC Petition No. 44 of 2016, is modified in aforesaid terms with direction to Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants with right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and the rate of interest is reduced from 7.5% to 6% per annum. Quantum in FAO No. 64 of 2022 22. Claimants have duly proved the monthly salary at the time of death of deceased Manoj Kumar as Rs. 57,692/- and he was 53 years old and there are four dependents/claimants in the petition. 23. By applying the ratio of Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in this appeal shall be as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculations 1 Annual Salary Rs. 57,692/- per month Rs. 57,692 * 12 = Rs. 57,692/- and he was 53 years old and there are four dependents/claimants in the petition. 23. By applying the ratio of Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in this appeal shall be as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculations 1 Annual Salary Rs. 57,692/- per month Rs. 57,692 * 12 = Rs. 6,92,304 2 Annual Dependency After ¼th Deduction Rs. 6,92,304 – 25% = Rs. 5,19,228 3 Gross Salary after adding Future Prospects @15% Rs. 5,19,228 + 15% = Rs. 5,97,112 4 Income Tax, after deducting Rs. 2,50,000/- (exempted income) @10% on next 2,50,000 and 20% on the balance, for 5 years. Rs. 6,92,304 - 2,50,000 = Rs. 4,42,304 Rs. 2,50,000 * 10% = Rs. 25,000 Rs. 4,42,304 - 2,50,000 = Rs. 1,92,304 Rs. 1,92,304 @ 20% = Rs. 38,461 Tax: Rs. 25,000 + 38,461 = Rs. 63,461 Rs. 63,461 * 5 = Rs. 3,17,305 5 Multiplier at the time of death At the time of death, age of the victim was 53 years, therefore, multiplier of 11 was applicable in terms of judgments in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases. Rs. 5,97,112 * 11 = Rs. 65,68,232/- 6 Income after deducting Income Tax Rs. 65,68,232 – 3,17,305 = Rs. 62,50,927 7 Loss of Dependency Rs. 62,50,927 8 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 9 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium @40,000/- to each of the claimants Rs. 1,60,000/- 10 Total Rs. 64,40,927 24. In view of Pranay Sethi and Magma’s cases all claimants shall be entitled for consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each. The remaining amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants in the following terms:- Claimant Percentage Claimant No. 1 40% Claimant No. 2 to 4 20% each 25. The impugned award dated 16.09.2021 passed by MACT-I, District Kangra, H.P. in MACT No. 55 of 2016, is modified in the aforesaid terms. 26. In both the appeals, Insurance Company is directed to pay amount of compensation in aforesaid terms to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till payment/deposit of the same with right to recover the same from the owner of the Car. The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid modification.