SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed by the non-applicant insurance company against the award dated 24. 2. 97 passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, in Claim case No. 67 of 1995 whereby respondentsclaimants were awarded compensation of rs. 2,95,000. ( 2 ) THE claimants' case, in brief, was that the deceased Peerulal, aged about 25 years, husband of respondent No. 3 and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, was employed as khallasi in railway department on the salary of Rs. 2,000 per month. On 9. 5. 1994 at 1 a. m. in the night, he was coming on his scooter M-80, No. HKM 4448 from Ujjain towards Mohanpura. When he came in front of Rojwan Dhaba, taj bus No. CPU 424, belonging to respondent No. 2, insured with appellant, came from opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently by respondent-non-applicant No. 1 and dashed against him, as a result of which Peerulal sustained injuries and died. The claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation of rs. 9,20,000. The appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim. The appellant, inter alia, averred that the deceased was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident. The respondent-non-applicant no. 1 had no valid licence, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. CPU 424 by respondent No. 1 and allowed compensation as stated above. ( 3 ) MR. Swami, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that from the letter of R. T. O. , Exh. D-4, it is clear that the licence of respondent No. 1 was bogus and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. The respondents remained unrepresented. ( 4 ) WE have considered the matter and we find that there is nothing on record to show that appellant had specifically taken the plea of driving licence held by respondent No. 1 to be bogus. It had only made a generalised averment that the licence was invalid without indicating basis thereof. After all, any allegation regarding the fake-ness of licence was required to be specifically pleaded and evidence led thereon after affording respondent Nos. 1 and 2 an opportunity of being heard in the matter to show that the licence was genuine. It had only made a generalised averment that the licence was invalid without indicating basis thereof. After all, any allegation regarding the fake-ness of licence was required to be specifically pleaded and evidence led thereon after affording respondent Nos. 1 and 2 an opportunity of being heard in the matter to show that the licence was genuine. This was admittedly not done and, therefore, appellant could not claim any exoneration from liability on this ground. Even if, it was assumed that the licence held by respondent No. 1 would turnout to be bogus, nothing would come in the way of appellant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner (respondent No. 2 ). Meanwhile, claimants could not be allowed to be thrown on the road and go empty handed in disregard of intent and spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 5 ) NOW we come to the question of adequacy of compensation. The appellant could not challenge the quantum of compensation. Its defence was limited as provided under section 149 of the Act. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was collusion between the claimants and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant did not obtain written permission of the Tribunal under section 170 of the Act. Even otherwise, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. The deceased was a railway employee. His salary was rs. 2,069 per month vide statement Exh. P-3. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,500 per month and yearly rs. 18,000, applied multiplier of 16 in view of the age of the deceased which was 25-30 years and worked out Rs. 2,88,000 and added Rs. 2,000 for last rites, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and awarded rs. 2,95,000. In our opinion, this amount cannot be said to be excessive. ( 6 ) IN view of above, we dismiss the appeal with observation that if it was found on proper inquiry that the licence of respondent No. 1 was bogus, the appellant would be free to recover this amount from the respondents by taking appropriate steps. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .