BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, dated 23. 10. 1996. ( 2 ) ON 4. 4. 1992, minibus No. MKK 5103, owned by Awdhesh Kumar Tiwari and driven by Anil Kumar Raikwar, insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. hit rampratap, aged 48, near Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. At the time of accident, the deceased was riding a bicycle and the bus hit him from behind. Claimants submit that at the time of incident, deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 inclusive of other funds. Out of this income, he was supporting his family. In this accident, he sustained head injury, was admitted in the military hospital and died on 8. 4. 1992. This accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. Claim for rs. 7,70,000 has been preferred. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied the allegations. They submit that the deceased was responsible for the accident since he was driving on the wrong side of the road. It is admitted that the deceased was working in the factory, but they dispute the basis for the claim. It is pointed out by the driver that the vehicle was being driven carefully at slow speed, whereas the cycle was moving at a fast speed and by chance, it took side resulting in the accident. The claim is exaggerated, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The appellant has disputed the facts as stated. The driver did not possess driving licence for driving heavy and medium vehicles, thereby contravening the conditions stipulated in the insurance policy. Consequently, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed issues on the pleadings of parties and on the basis of evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged due to rash and negligent driving when the bus hit the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased suffered injuries and died. It found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,641 and he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,52,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of claim petition to the date of payment. On the question of licence, the finding is that the driver possessed the licence. It found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,641 and he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,52,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of claim petition to the date of payment. On the question of licence, the finding is that the driver possessed the licence. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver did not possess driving licence for driving heavy vehicles at the time of accident. If he knew driving heavy vehicles, proper endorsement on the driving licence ought to have been made by the competent authority. Mr. A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the driver possessed the licence to drive the vehicle. Moreover, it is not proved that the vehicle in question was a heavy vehicle, therefore, it has to be taken that it was light motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He is supported by Mr. Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle. We find that except for taking this defence, no effort was made by the appellant to substantiate the same. It was not pointed out under what provision endorsement on the driving licence pointing out that the driver could drive this kind of vehicle, could be made. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on this question has to be maintained. ( 6 ) MR. A. K. Jain submits that crossobjections under Order 41, rule 22 read with rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel took us through the evidence in the case and emphasised that the Tribunal did not employ correct multiplier in this case resulting in non-payment of just compensation. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the age of the deceased, we find that proper multiplier in this case should be 13 as against 10 applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, taking into consideration the dependency at rs. 1,100, the compensation payable to the claimants would be (Rs. 1,100 x 12 x 13)= Rs. 1,71,600. Adding to this amount rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 1,78,600. Therefore, taking into consideration the dependency at rs. 1,100, the compensation payable to the claimants would be (Rs. 1,100 x 12 x 13)= Rs. 1,71,600. Adding to this amount rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 1,78,600. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till full payment. The amount already paid shall be deducted from the amount of compensation so assessed. Balance amount of compensation be paid to the claimants within two months. Costs on parties. Appeal dismissed. .