ORDER 1. These Misc. Appeals arise out of common award dated 29.11.1999 in Claim Case No. 1/95, Claim Case No. 2/95, Claim Case No. 3/95, Claim Case No. 4/95, Claim Case No. 65/96; by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul. In all the aforesaid appeals, preferred by the insurer-appellant, the claimants/respondents have filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming enhancement of the awarded amount. Particulars of the Misc. Appeals and cross-objections are as below: -- S. No. Claim Misc. Appeal Cross Objection Case Number M(c) P Number Number (1) 1/95 438/2000 103/2000 (2) 2/95 436/2000 101/2000 (3) 3/95 440/2000 102/2000 (4) 4/95 437/2000 106/2000 (5) 65/96 439/2000 100/2000 It may be noted that Claim Case No. 1/1995 relating to M.A. No. 438 of 2000 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Vishram. Claim Case No.2 of 1995 relating to M.A. No. 436 of 2000 has been preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Phoolan; Claim Case No.3 of 1995 relating to M.A. No. 440 of 2000 has been filed by the injured Savita. Claim Case No.4 of 1995 relating to M.A. No. 437 of 2000 has been preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Dulahare while Claim Case No. 65 of 1996 relating to M.A. No. 439 of 2000 has been preferred by the injured Shewari. All the aforesaid Misc. Appeals and cross-objections, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The said claim cases were filed by the claimants alleging that on 17.11.1994 Truck No. CPB: 7945 met with an accident on Baretha Ghoda Tanker Road near village Deshawadi. Claimants are either the legal representatives of the deceased or the injured, who were travelling by the said truck, which was being driven by driver Vinod. 3. It was further stated that the said truck was initially of the ownership of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda and was purchased in an auction by respondent No.2 Radheyshyam. However, in the registration certificate, the name of the respondent Radheshyam was not entered by the Regional Transport Officer. However, the insurance of the vehicle with respondent No. 3 was made in the name of Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda through respondent Radheyshyam. The said vehicle was subsequently purchased by respondent Satosh Tanwar on 29.4.1993 and the insurer/appellant New India Assurance Co. However, the insurance of the vehicle with respondent No. 3 was made in the name of Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda through respondent Radheyshyam. The said vehicle was subsequently purchased by respondent Satosh Tanwar on 29.4.1993 and the insurer/appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. thereafter insured the vehicle for the period from 18.11.1993 to 17 .11.1994 treating Santosh Tanwar as the insured. A cover-note to that effect was also issued, though the policy document was not issued. 4. The appellant insurer in their reply to the claim petitions filed by the claimants admitted that they had insured the offending vehicle -- Truck No. CPB. 7945. According to the averments of the insurer/ appellant, the vehicle was insured on 17.11.1994 in the name of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda, through the respondent Santosh Tanwar and Insurance Policy No. 314570302903 was issued with regard to the said insurance. 5. Common evidence was recorded in all the cases. The learned Tribunal, after scrutiny and appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Vinod. It was also held that the truck was registered in the name of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda through respondent Santosh Tanwar. The truck was admittedly insured by the appellant for the period from 18.11.1993 to 17.11.1994 and thus there was no dispute that the policy of insurance issued by the appellant was effective on the date of accident, i.e., on 17.11.1994. The Tribunal granted awards as below:- (i) In Claim Case No.1 of 1995, compensation of Rs. 1.0 lakh was awarded to the claimants of that case, on account of death of Vishram in the said accident. (ii) In Claim Case No.2 of 1995, an amount of Rs. 95,000/- has been granted to the LRs on account of death of Sahu. (iii) In Claim Case No.3 of 1995, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/injured Savita holding that she had suffered permanent disability. (iv) In Claim Case No.4 of 1995, compensation of Rs. 11,000/- has been awarded to the claimant Dulahare holding that he suffered simple injuries in the accident, & (v) In Claim Case No. 65 of 1996 compensation of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/injured Dhewari holding that he had suffered permanent disability. 6. (iv) In Claim Case No.4 of 1995, compensation of Rs. 11,000/- has been awarded to the claimant Dulahare holding that he suffered simple injuries in the accident, & (v) In Claim Case No. 65 of 1996 compensation of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/injured Dhewari holding that he had suffered permanent disability. 6. The appellant insurance company in these appeals has challenged the awards as above. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/insurer could not be made liable to pay the amount of award as there was breach of terms of policy. It has been submitted in the above context, that the driver Vinod did not have valid driving licence to drive the truck and thus the terms of the policy were breached. It was further contended that the registration certificate did not disclose that the respondent Radheshyam was the owner of the truck and that intimation was not given to the appellant/insurer about the change of ownership of the said truck; as such there was no privity of contract between the respondent owner Radheshyam and the appellant/insurer. It was also urged that the deceased or the injured were travelling in a goods vehicle truck, in breach of terms of policy. Therefore, the appellant could not be made liable for payment of compensation. 7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant/insurer that the driver Vinod did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, is first taken up for consideration. 8. It may be noticed that the appellant insurer did not take any steps to produce the licence in the Tribunal. It appears that a photo-copy of the licence was produced before the Tribunal. Some enquiry was made by the appellant-insurer from the Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi. A certificate (Ex.D/1) is reported to have been issued by the RTO, Jhansi. However, the RTO, Jhansi or any other official from that office has not been examined. Therefore, it appears that the original driving licence was not produced in the case and no steps whatsoever were taken towards that end. The original record of RTO was also not requisitioned and no official from the RTO, Jhansi was examined Therefore the certificate (Ex.D/1) issued by RTO Jhansi could not be relied upon. 9. Therefore, it appears that the original driving licence was not produced in the case and no steps whatsoever were taken towards that end. The original record of RTO was also not requisitioned and no official from the RTO, Jhansi was examined Therefore the certificate (Ex.D/1) issued by RTO Jhansi could not be relied upon. 9. In the above context, it may also be noted that the respondent Santosh Kumar Tanwar (NA-2) has categorically stated that he had seen the driving licence of the driver Vinod while the latter was being employed as driver. Therefore, it is clear that the insured Santosh Tanwar has stated on oath that driver Vinod had a licence while he was employed by Santosh Kumar Tanwar (NA/2) as driver. That being so, even if said licence on subsequent enquiry is found to be forged one; it cannot be said that there was breach of terms of policy by the owner. 10. As noticed earlier, the appellant insurer has failed to take appropriate steps to get produced the licence from the driver. In the circumstances, the appellant has failed to prove that the driver was not possessed of a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. 11. In the foregoing circumstances, the statement of the owner Santosh Tanwar that the driver Vinod had a licence will have to be accepted. Reliance in the above connection is placed on Narchinva V. Kamat and another v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others ( AIR 1985 SC 1281 ) wherein it has been laid down that if the insurance company failed to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, it is liable under the contract of insurance and is bound to satisfy the award under the policy. Similarly, in Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal and others ( AIR 1990 SC 1979 ) it has been laid down that it is the burden of the insurance company to prove its plea that the driver did not have the driving licence. If no evidence is led by the insurance company to discharge its burden, then it will be liable for payment of compensation. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. If no evidence is led by the insurance company to discharge its burden, then it will be liable for payment of compensation. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ashique and others [1998 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 79], a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the Insurance Company does not examine the concerned RTO or its officer to prove its plea that the driver was not holding a valid licence then such a plea is not duly established by it. 12. In view of the above, the appellant insurance company cannot avail of its defence that the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid licence. Therefore, the appellant/insurer cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation, on the above ground. 13. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the truck was insured by respondent Western Coalfields Limited through Santosh Tanwar while it was being plied by respondent Radheyshyam. No intimation of the change of ownership has been given to the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be made liable for payment of compensation. 14. It may be noticed in the above context that the original policy document has not been produced by the insurance company. It may also be noticed that the Cover Note (Ex. P/29) produced in the case showed that the policy was issued in favour of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakheda through Santosh Tanwar. It is also an admitted position of the case that the offending truck was duly insured at the time of the accident. In the circumstances, the appellant/insurer cannot avoid payment of compensation to the claimants. In the above connection, reference may be made to G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [ (1999) 3 SCC 754 ]. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani and others (1999 ACJ 213) & Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ (1996) 1 SCC 221 ]. The said cases were relied upon by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi and others v. Dayaram and others 2000 (2) JLJ 199 = [ 2000 (3) MPHT 197 ]. It has been held therein that the insurance policy remains effective in respect of third party risk even if there has been absence of application or intimation as stipulated under section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been held therein that the insurance policy remains effective in respect of third party risk even if there has been absence of application or intimation as stipulated under section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It may he noticed that in G.Govindan's Case (Supra), the Apex Court has laid down that a victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee. 15. Therefore, even if the policy was not transferred and no intimation was given to the insurer, about the transfer of the ownership; yet the insurance company could not avoid its third-party liability during the period of insurance. In view of above, the learned tribunal was justified in holding that the insurance company cannot avail of the defence as above. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that the deceased or the claimants were travelling in a goods vehicle and, therefore, there was breach of policy condition; and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. However, the contention as above does not hold water, in view of the pronouncement in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Salpal Singh and others ( AIR 2000 SC 235 ) wherein it has been held that third-party risk of the gratuitous passengers in a vehicle of any type or class would stand covered by the policy issued by the insurer. 17. Therefore, none of the contentions in support of the appellants plea that there was breach of terms of policy and, therefore, it should be exonerated from liability to pay the amount of compensation are acceptable. Therefore, all the appeals filed by the insurer deserve to be dismissed. 18. Now, the M(C) Ps filed by the L.R.s of the deceased or the claimants as detailed above, for enhancement of amount of compensation would be considered. 19. As noticed earlier, M(C)P No. 103/2000 has been preferred by the claimants/LRs of deceased Vishram. It may be noted that deceased Vishram was aged about 30 years and his monthly earning, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, was Rs. 900/- and monthly dependency was calculated at Rs. 500/- and thus the annual dependency would amount to Rs. 6,000/- To that a multiplier of 15 was applied and thus the, sum of Rs. 90,000/- was arrived at. 900/- and monthly dependency was calculated at Rs. 500/- and thus the annual dependency would amount to Rs. 6,000/- To that a multiplier of 15 was applied and thus the, sum of Rs. 90,000/- was arrived at. To the said sum was added Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus a total award of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted. 20. The said sum does not appear to be inadequately low, considering the age of the deceased, his monthly earning as labourer and also the dependency as calculated by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this award as above does not call for interference. 21. In M(C) P No. 101/2000 in M.A. No. 436/2000 compensation of Rs. 95,000/- on account of death of Sahu has been awarded to his legal representatives. It was held by the learned Tribunal that deceased Sahu was aged about 18 years. His monthly income as a labourer was held to be Rs. 900/-. He, was unmarried. The monthly dependency of his legal representatives was calculated at Rs. 500/-. Thus, annual dependency amounted to Rs. 6,000/- and to that multiplier of 15 was applied. Thus, compensation of Rs. 90,000/- was arrived at. To that was added Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and pain and suffering to the legal representatives. Thus, a total award of Rs. 95,000/- was granted in the said claim case No. 2/1995. 22. The award as above does not appear to be inadequately low so as to call for any enhancement. Hence M(C)P No. 101/2000 also does not deserve to be allowed and deserves to be rejected. 23. In M(C)P No. 102/2000 preferred by claimant/injured Savita, the award of Rs. 40,000/- on account of her permanent disability caused to her, has been granted. It appears that the learned Tribunal held that she was permanently disabled and after considering the injury sustained by her, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of non-pecuniary damages and Rs. 10,000/- on account of pecuniary damages for expenses on special died and medicines was awarded. 24. The said award in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by claimant Savita does not appear to be inadequately low. The same does not call for any interference. Hence M(C)P No. 102/2000 also deserves to be dismissed. 25. 24. The said award in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by claimant Savita does not appear to be inadequately low. The same does not call for any interference. Hence M(C)P No. 102/2000 also deserves to be dismissed. 25. M(C)P No. 106/2000 has been preferred in M.A. No. 437/2000 relating to Cairn Case No. 4/1995 by the claimant Dulahare who was awarded compensation of Rs. 11,000/-. He appears to have sustained simple injury in the accident. The amount of Rs. 6,000/- on account of special diet and expenses on medicines and Rs. 5,000/- as non-pecuniary damages on account of mental pain and suffering was assessed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, total sum of Rs. 11. 000/- as compensation was awarded to him. 26. As the claimant Dulahare has suffered simple injury, the award of compensation as above appears to be just and proper. It does not appear to be inadequately law, so as to call for any enhancement. 27. M(C)P No. 100/2000 has been preferred by the claimant Shewari in M.A. No. 439/2000 relating to Claim No. 65/1996. It has been held by the learned Tribunal that he suffered permanent disability. He was awarded Rs. 27,000/- as non-pecuniary damages, while Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded to him towards expenses on special diet and medicines. Considering the nature of injury and the period of treatment, etc., the amount of compensation as above granted by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 28. The compensation as above appears to be just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. Therefore, M(C)P No. 100/2000 also deserves to be dismissed. 29. As a result of the above discussion, it is clear that all the appeals filed by the insurer appellant as well as the cross-objections filed by the claimants do not deserve to be allowed. The impugned-awards do not call for any interference in the foregoing circumstances. Accordingly, all the above appeals as well as the Cross-Objections stand dismissed.