JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Claimants (for short ‘the claimants’) against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Claim Case No.179/2012, whereby an amount of Rs.4,89,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that alleged mini bus had valid permit but in violation of the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that as per the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company should first pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the alleged vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that for the same accident a claim petition was filed by the claimants Jagdish Prasad and Batti Lal before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2016 allowed the claim petition and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Insurance Company preferred an appeal before this Court and settled the dispute in the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. Deceased was teaching the students and taking tuitions and earning Rs.10,000/-per month. Alternatively, learned counsel for the claimants also submits that income of the deceased be calculated as prevalent at the relevant point of time for skilled labour i.e. Rs.155/-per day. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the future prospects, whereas as per the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years it should be 40% of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As per the dependency, it should be 1/4th of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount of Rs.7,000/-towards the funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, award of the Tribunal be modified.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Om Prakash Jain Vs. Smt. Sita & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.215/2014; (2) Raju Dhobi Vs. Jumma Khan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.6357/2019 and (3) Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIR General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018 DNJ (SC) 678.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company because it is a case of violation of the permit and insurance policy. As per norms, alleged bus could carry 17 passengers but there were 30-40 passengers in the bus at the time of accident. So, tyre of the bus burst and bus toppled down. Resultantly, accident took place due to negligence of the driver. So, Insurance Company had no liability to pay the compensation. He further submitted that age of the deceased was 26 years but the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 18, whereas it should be 17. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd amount of the deceased’s income as personal expenses because deceased had 3 dependent. He further submitted that there was no cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month by way of teaching the students and tuitions. So, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. So, ap