JUDGMENT : AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J. 1. As all the three appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in all the appeals is to the award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.471/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.45,58,556/- as total compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicants therein i.e. owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 3. MAC No.636/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company while challenging the impugned award whereby the liability was fastened upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. MAC No.619/2018 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle questioning the liability fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle while holding that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was owned by the appellant and there was breach of policy conditions as there was no fitness of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 5. MAC No.1680/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation stating that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 26.06.2015, at about 5.00 PM, Devendra Das Manikpuri (since deceased) was standing on Mandir Hasaud Bus Stand and waiting for Bus, at that relevant time, one Hywa Truck bearing registration No.CG-04/J/6212 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) coming from Aarang side, dashed Devendra Das Manikpuri, due to which, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries over his person. He was taken to Hospital on 108 Vehicle, but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Mandir Hasuad, District Raipur against non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle bearing Crime No.183/25 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. He was taken to Hospital on 108 Vehicle, but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Mandir Hasuad, District Raipur against non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle bearing Crime No.183/25 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. The legal heirs of Devendra Das Manikpuri have filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) seeking total compensation of Rs.70,50,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years, working as Helper Grade-1 at Railway Station Dongargarh (C.G.) and earning Rs.22,854/- per month. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has issued notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement while stating that the driver was driving the vehicle with due diligence and it was not being driven any rash and negligent act. They have further pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and there was valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, as such insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. 10. Written statement was also field by the Insurance Company while stating that the claim application filed by the claimants are not in accordance with law. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of the insurance policy as there was no valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy the amount of compensation. 11. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 8 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.24,284/- per month i.e. Rs.2,91,408 while working in the Railway Department as Helper Grade-I at Dongargah Railway Station. While adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 20% towards income tax, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.3,49,690/- per annum. While adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 20% towards income tax, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.3,49,690/- per annum. While deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 17, awarded an amount of Rs.44,58,556/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.45,58,556/- to the claimants i.e. wife, daughter, mother and father of the deceased vide impugned award with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 12. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company as there is violation of policy conditions since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as well as there was no valid fitness to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has further committed an error in not exonerating the Insurance Company since deceased Devendra Das Manikpuri should be blamed for accident since he was not cautious in standing in bus stand which is crowded area and buses and trucks are going frequently in great easterner roll. It has been contended that the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate as vide Ex.D/3, the fitness of the offending vehicle is from 31.05.2014 to 30.05.2014 and the date of accident is 26.06.2015, as such, the Insurance Company is not held responsible for payment of any amount of compensation. It has been further contended that the offending vehicle was a “Heavy Motor Vehicle or Heavy Goods Vehicle” as unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 8000 kgs. and there is no authorization in the driving licence of the driver to drive like the offending vehicle as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was issued to driver “Light Motor Vehicle, Motorcycle With Gear and Transport Vehicle”. It has been lastly contended that upon the death of Devendra Das Manikpuri, his son has got compassionate appointment, as such the amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be reduced suitably. It has been lastly contended that upon the death of Devendra Das Manikpuri, his son has got compassionate appointment, as such the amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be reduced suitably. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.636/2018 is required to be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others , (2020) 11 SCC 356 to buttress his submissions. 13. Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle by filing separate appeal being MAC No.619/2018 while challenging the liability fastened upon him by the Claims Tribunal has argued that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. He submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is ex-facie bad, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘Rules of 1989’) empowers that the trial Court shall hold any enquiry as is required in the matter, but learned Claims Tribunal has committed error or law by not invoking the power as enumerated under Rule 226 of the Rules of 1989 as true fact is still to be adjudicate regarding accident. It has been contended that the income of the deceased has taken on absolutely on higher side, which is contrary to the settled provisions of law. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed in appreciating the facts and application for giving the fitness certificate about the vehicle in question as it was already pending before the Regional Transport Office and the application was duly filed within the time by the owner of the offending vehicle, as such no liability can be fastened upon the owner. It has been argued that learned Claims Tribunal Court ought to have seen and appreciated that it was the duty of the Insurance Company as also the owner of the offending vehicle to prove the fact that the vehicle in question was unfit at the relevant point of time, which is not done by the respective parties, rather the matter which was already pending before the Regional Transport Office for consideration itself is sufficient to prove the fact that the owner was not at any kind of fault why he was not getting certificate, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case that he had already moved the application for fitness in time, which was pending consideration, hence, the contention as raised by the Insurance Company is not in accordance with law and as such, the liability fastened upon the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and the finding in respect of liability part is required to be modified while holding that the vehicle was having valid fitness on the date and time of the accident. It has been further argued that the owner of the offending vehicle has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking documents on record, which needs to be allowed. Hence, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.619/2018 is required to be allowed and the liability be fastened only on the Insurance Company. 14. Hence, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.619/2018 is required to be allowed and the liability be fastened only on the Insurance Company. 14. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy and others , (1979) 2 SCC 601 , Meenaben Pankajkumar Joshi and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited , (2009) 9 SCC 363 , Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 5 SCC 656 , Vimla Devi and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another , (2019) 2 SCC 186 , Sanjeena Ikhbal and others v. Mini Babu George and others , 2024 INSC 787 as well as the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the matter of Smt. Nithya Venkatesh @ Nithya Kalayani and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another passed in MFA No. 5993/2015 decided on 02.01.2020 and the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Shanti Bai v. Daneshwar Singh Raghuvanshi and others , 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 604, National Insurance Company Limited v. Ghanaram Sahu , (2018) 2 CGLJ 75 and In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPPIL No. 62/2024 decided on 07.10.2024 to buttress his submissions. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 16. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court finds it appropriate to decide the issue of liability at first. 18. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for Insurance Company is that on the date of accident, there was no valid fitness certificate available for offending vehicle is concerned, the Insurance Company has produced the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle vide Ex.D/3, wherein it has been mentioned that the offending vehicle was having fitness from 31.05.2014 to 30.05.2015. 19. 19. From the record of the claim case, it is quite vivid that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. It is reflected from the record that the fitness of the offending vehicle was from 31.05.2014 to 30.05.2015 (Ex.D/3) and the date of accident is 26.06.2015. From the written statement of the owner of the offending vehicle, it seems that he has filed an application for renewal of the fitness certificate on 06.05.2015 by depositing the fee of Rs.500/- to the Regional Transport Office and later, the offending vehicle got certificate of fitness on 07.07.2015 valid upto 06.07.2016. 20. Section 56 of the M.V. Act deals with certificate of fitness of transport vehicles, which is reproduced below for easy reference :- “ 56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub- section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses is issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. (2) The “authorised testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained: Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications. (5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective, be valid throughout India. 21. To prove the document of fitness, the Insurance Company has examined one Rambharosa as NAW-3(1), who has stated in his evidence that the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate on 26.06.2015. he further stated that offending vehicle was having valid fitness certificate from 06.05.2006 to 05.05.2008, 30.04.2011 to 05.05.2012, 21.05.2013 to 20.04.2014, 31.05.2014 to 30.05.2015, 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and 23.06.2016 to 06.07.2017. He submits that the office has not issued fitness of the offending vehicle from 30.05.2015 to 06.07.2015 and on 09.02.2016, the office has issued fitness particulars, according to which the offending vehicle was having valid fitness from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016. 22. Likewise, another witness namely Satyendra Kumar Ahuja was also examined by the Insurance Company as NAW-3(2), who stated in his evidence that the insurance policy was issued to the offending vehicle bearing Policy No.46040031150100000988 for a period from 01.05.2015 to 30.04.2016, as such, there was no insurance policy of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. He further stated that upon examination, it was found that on the date of accident, i.e. on 26.06.2015, the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate. 23. He further stated that upon examination, it was found that on the date of accident, i.e. on 26.06.2015, the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate. 23. Merely filing document before Court or Claims Tribunal will not in itself will be read as evidence, but the document produced is required to be proved by calling the authority who issued the document or when it is any Government record then the custodian of the record. In the case at hand, the owner as well as Insurance Company utterly failed to discharge its burden by proving the fact asserted by it with regard to absence of valid fitness certificate. 24. The five Judges Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dealt with the issue of fitness certificate in the matter of Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ernakulam , AIR 2019 Kerala 9 (FB) has held as under:- “15. As mentioned above, fitness of a vehicle, to be used as a transport vehicle, is of paramount importance. The necessity to have 'Fitness Certificate' is prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 clearly stipulates that, a transport vehicle [subject to the provisions of Section 59 (power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle) and Section 60 (registration of the vehicles belonging to the Central Government)] shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39, unless it carries a 'Certificate of Fitness' as prescribed. By virtue of Section 84 (a), as mentioned already, it is a mandatory requirement of every Permit, that the vehicle to which the Permit relates, shall carry valid 'Certificate of Fitness' issued under Section 56 at all time, absence of which will automatically lead to a situation that the vehicle will not be deemed as having a Permit [if it is not having a 'Fitness Certificate' on a given date]. Using a motor vehicle in an unsafe condition in any public place itself is an offence under Section 190 of the Act. Separate penalty is prescribed under Section 192 for driving or using the motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 of the Act [i.e. without registration]; which at the first instance by fine upto Rs.5000/- [not less than Rs. Using a motor vehicle in an unsafe condition in any public place itself is an offence under Section 190 of the Act. Separate penalty is prescribed under Section 192 for driving or using the motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 of the Act [i.e. without registration]; which at the first instance by fine upto Rs.5000/- [not less than Rs. 2000/-] and for the second or subsequent offences, it may be with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or fine upto Rs.10,000/- [not less than Rs.5000/-] or with both; of course, conferring power upon the Court to impose a lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Similarly, separate punishment is provided for using vehicles without 'Permit' as provided under Section 192A (first offence with fine upto Rs.5000/-) which shall not be less than Rs.2000/- and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment upto one year (which shall not be less than 3 months or with fine upto Rs.10.000/- which shall not be less than Rs.5000/-) or with both; here again conferring power on the Court to impose lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Reference is made to the above provisions only to illustrate the utmost requirement to have a valid 'Registration, Permit and Fitness Certificate'. 16. Importance of the fitness/road worthiness of a vehicle, right from the time of registration of the vehicle, is further discernible from Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 [referred to as Central Rules]. The said Rule deals with application for registration of motor vehicles, which, among other things, stipulates that it shall be accompanied by various documents. Under sub-rule (1) (g), it is mandatory to produce road worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers (Form 22A from the body builders). On completing the formalities/procedures, 'Certificate of Registration' is to be issued in terms of Rule 48 of the Central Rules in Form 23/23A, as the case may be. The said Rule contains a proviso, insisting that, when Certificate of Registration pertains to a transport vehicle, it shall be handed over to the registered owner only after recording the Certificate of Fitness in Form 38. The said Rule contains a proviso, insisting that, when Certificate of Registration pertains to a transport vehicle, it shall be handed over to the registered owner only after recording the Certificate of Fitness in Form 38. Validity of the Certificate of Fitness is only to the extent as envisaged under Rule 62 of the Central Rules, which mandates, as per the proviso, that the renewal of a Fitness Certificate shall be made only after the Inspecting Officer or authorised Testing Station as referred to in sub Section 1 of Section 56 of the Act has carried out the test specified in the table given therein. 17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers. 21. The question whether absence of valid Permit to a transport vehicle at the time of accident is a 'fundamental breach' or a 'technical breach' had come up for consideration again before the Apex Court recently in Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others [ AIR 2018 SC 2662 ]. The factual matrix in the said case is that, the rider of the motor cycle was knocked down to death by the offending truck on 19.02.2013, which led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs. The claim was resisted by the insurer, mainly contending that there was violation of policy conditions in so far as the offending truck was not having a valid Permit and the driver was not having a valid driving licence. Based on the materials on record and placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Challa Upendra Rao's case ( AIR 2004 SC 4882 ) [cited supra], the Tribunal, after fixing the quantum of compensation, directed the insurer to satisfy the same, with liberty to have it recovered from the insured. The said finding and reasoning came to be affirmed by the High Court, in turn leading to the proceedings before the Apex Court. After exhaustive discussion on the relevant provisions of law including Section 2 (28), 2 (31), 2 (47), 66, 149 and 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 and the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court at different points of time, including in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. After exhaustive discussion on the relevant provisions of law including Section 2 (28), 2 (31), 2 (47), 66, 149 and 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 and the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court at different points of time, including in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ] and Challa Upendra Rao's case [cited supra], the Apex Court held that the offending truck was not having a valid Permit on the date of accident; which was not a technical breach to attract the dictum in Swaran Singhs' case [cited supra] [where also right of recovery was held as conferred on the insurer, once the breach was established by the insurer]. It was also observed that, it was not a case where any of the exceptions under sub- section (3) of Section 66 was attracted and further that, existence of a Permit of any nature was matter of documentary evidence. The Bench held that the exceptions carved out under Section 66 (3) of the Act are to be pleaded and proved by the insured/owner and this burden cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the insurer. It has accordingly been declared that, the use of a transport vehicle in a public place without Permit is a fundamental/statutory infraction and the principles laid down in Swaran Singh's case [cited supra] and Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance [ (2016) 3 SCC 100 ] cannot be applicable in this regard. The Apex Court held, in such circumstances, that the verdict passed by the High Court affirming the stand of the Tribunal directing the insurer to satisfy the liability and to have it recovered from the owner/insured was in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh's case [cited supra] and other cases pertaining to 'pay and recover principle'. From the above, it is quite evident that the law stands settled by the Apex Court as per the decision Challa Upendra Rao' case ( AIR 2004 SC 4882 ) [cited supra] and the latest ruling in Amrit paul's case ( AIR 2018 SC 2662 ) [cited supra]. This being the position, the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Augustine V.M. Vs. This being the position, the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Augustine V.M. Vs. Ayyappankutty @ Mani and others ( AIR 2015 KER 131 (FB)) [cited supra] holding that the absence of valid Permit or Fitness Certificate is not a fundamental breach, but a technical breach and that no right of recovery can be given to the insurer is not at all correct. It accordingly stands overruled. Consequently, the dictum in Thara's case (AIR 2009 (NOC) 2244 (Ker) [cited supra] is restored and the contrary view expressed in Sethunath's case (2011 AAC 629 (Ker) [cited supra] stands declared as incorrect.” 25. In view of aforementioned discussions and law laid down in aforementioned judgment, owner could not able to produce any document showing fitness of offending vehicle on the date of accident, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 26. In view of the above, the ground urged by learned counsel for the owner that there was no breach of conditions of insurance policy stands rejected. 27. The second ground urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to driver the offence vehicle as there was no endorsement in the driving licence of the driver to drive ‘Heavy Motor Vehicle or Heavy Goods Vehicle’. 28. From perusal of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was produced by the owner along with an application for taking document on record, it is clear that licence was issued in the name of Mahendra Kumar Pal to drive Light Motor Vehicle, Motorcycle With Gear and Transport Vehicle, which was valid upto 17.07.2015 (Transport) and 25.04.2030 (Non-Transport). 29. Insurance Company has also produced copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle, which is marked as Ex.D/1. 30. Perusal of registration certificate (Ex.D/1) would show that unladen vehicle weight of offending vehicle is 8000 kgs. 29. Insurance Company has also produced copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle, which is marked as Ex.D/1. 30. Perusal of registration certificate (Ex.D/1) would show that unladen vehicle weight of offending vehicle is 8000 kgs. It cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle because in the driving licence itself, it has been mentioned that the driver was authorized to drive Transport Vehicle upto 17.07.2015 and the date of accident is 26.06.2015, as such this Court is of the opinion that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 31. In view of above, second ground raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not sustainable and is hereby rejected. 32. Considering the matter in its entirety, it is crystal clear that until and unless, there was no valid fitness and on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence, the owner as well as Insurance Company cannot escape from their liability to pay the amount of compensation. 33. In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as owner of the offending vehicle being MAC Nos.636/2018 and 619/2018 are dismissed being sans merit. 34. Now the question for enhancement of compensation in the appeal filed by the claimants is required to be taken into consideration. 35. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 36. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.22,854/- per month while working as Helper Grade-I in Indian Railways and in this regard, the claimants have produced the salary slip (Ex.P/13) showing the gross salary of Rs.28,450 and after deductions of Rs.6083, the net income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs.24,759.72. 36. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.22,854/- per month while working as Helper Grade-I in Indian Railways and in this regard, the claimants have produced the salary slip (Ex.P/13) showing the gross salary of Rs.28,450 and after deductions of Rs.6083, the net income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs.24,759.72. Taking into consideration the said fact, learned Claims Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.24,284/- per month i.e. Rs.2,91,408/- per annum, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. Going by the rulings rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with fixed income, 50% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospect, which comes to Rs.4,37,112/-. After deducting 20% towards income tax i.e. Rs.87,422/-, the annual income of the deceased reckoned as Rs.3,49,690/- After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.2,62,268/- After applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.44,58,556/- as rightly awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 37. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Appellants/Claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 38. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 39. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.24,284/- per month Rs.2,91,408/- per annum 2. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 39. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.24,284/- per month Rs.2,91,408/- per annum 2. 50% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 2,91,408 + 1,45,704 = Rs.4,37,112/- 3. 20% of (2) deduction towards income tax 4,37,112 x 20% = 87,422 Rs.3,49,690/- 4. 1/4th of (3) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 3,49,690 / 4 = Rs.87,422/- Rs.2,62,268/- 5. Compensation after multiplier of 17 applied 2,62,268 x 17 Rs.44,58,556/- 6. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 7. Towards loss of consortium to all the four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,92,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.46,86,556/- 40. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.46,86,556/- . After deducting Rs.45,58,556/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,28,000/- 41. From the above discussions, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1680/2018 is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,28,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 42. The submission made by learned counsel for the claimants is that there is violation of insurance policy only to the extent that offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate on the date of accident, therefore, it may be directed that the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of award and thereafter to recover the same from owner of offending Matador. 43. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for claimants. Accident was of year 2015 and till date, the claimants have not received amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Offending vehilce was insured with Insurance Company, therefore, keeping in mind the beneficial object of M.V. Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in enn number of cases directed the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from the insured. 44. Offending vehilce was insured with Insurance Company, therefore, keeping in mind the beneficial object of M.V. Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in enn number of cases directed the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from the insured. 44. The doctrine of pay and recover has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others , (2004) 8 SCC 517 Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured.” 45. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured.” 45. In another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others and Mamoni Saikia Mohanty and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others , (2017) 4 SCC 796 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “19. We find no merit in any of the submissions. Firstly, as mentioned above, we find marked similarity in the facts of this case and the one involved in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 . Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in Saju P. Paul’s Case (supra), it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench as would be clear from Para 26 of the judgment in Saju P. Paul’s Case (supra). That apart, learned counsel for the appellants stated at the bar that the reference made to the larger Bench has since been disposed of by keeping the issue undecided. It is for this reason also, the argument does not survive any more. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 3) - they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo)-respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra. 22. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. 22. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter respondent No. 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner (insured) of the offending Vehicle (Tata Sumo)-respondent No.1 in these very proceedings by filing execution application against the insured.” 46. Recently, in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 7 SCC 558, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue has held thus:- “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 (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) 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 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 (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 47. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 47. Considering the ratio laid down in above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also considering the beneficial object of M.V. Act as well, this Court is of the view that it will be in larger interest of justice to direct the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation to claimants and then to recover it from insured i.e. owner of offending vehicle in accordance with law, though in law it has no liability to pay amount of compensation. 48. In the Result:- (i) MAC No.636/2018 filed by the Insurance Company as well as MAC No.619/2018 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle are dismissed being devoid of merits. (ii) The appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1680/2018 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,28,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 49. As this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is though exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants, but keeping in mind the beneficial object of M.V. Act as also the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, this Court directs insurer of offending vehicle to first compensate the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and and have the said sum recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle in the manner as provided in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Shri Nanjappan and Others , AIR 2004 SC 1631. 50. As a consequence thereof, an application filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being I.A. No.1/2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking additional documents on record, stands dismissed. 51. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent.