JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of FAO No. 1549 of 1996 and Cross Objection No. 31-CII of 1998. 2. Bikramjit aged about 14 years died in a road accident on 8.2.1993. His bicycle was struck by Truck No. PIB 9370 near Bus Stand Moga. He was a student of 6th class. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short the Tribunal) came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- as compensation to the parents of the deceased. The parents had claimed that the boy was assisting his father in his Karyana shop and thereby rendering service worth Rs. 1000/- per month. However, in the absence of any concrete evidence, the Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs. 300/- per month only i.e. Rs. 3600/- per annum. The compensation of Rs. 54,000/- was determined after applying a multiplier of 15. 3. The Insurance Company in its appeal has challenged the award on the sole ground that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence, and therefore, the vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms of the insurance policy. It is, therefore, claimed that the Insurance company could not be held liable to pay the compensation. In the Cross-objections the claimants pray for enhancement of the compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company, has pointed out that the issue regarding the validity of the driving licence was considered under issue No. 4. The Tribunal had appointed a Local Commissioner at the request of the Insurance Company. He had submitted his report Ex. R-4, wherein it was stated that the alleged licence No. 1470/Rewa/90 had never been issued by the RTA, Rewa. However, despite this report, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter at all. The Tribunal has merely referred to the renewal of the said driving licence by the District Transport Authority, Bathinda, which was valid from 6.5.1993 to 5.5.1996. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the original licence was fake, the renewal of the licence would not confer validity on the same. 5. The Tribunal has merely referred to the renewal of the said driving licence by the District Transport Authority, Bathinda, which was valid from 6.5.1993 to 5.5.1996. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the original licence was fake, the renewal of the licence would not confer validity on the same. 5. No one is present on behalf of the owner of the truck despite service. Therefore, there is no assistance from that side. 6. A perusal of Exhibit R-4, a photo copy of which has been produced before me, and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 9 of its award, do support the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding about the taken is or otherwise of the original driving licence. Further, the validity of the renewed licence had also to be determined keeping in view the evidence about the original driving licence. I am, therefore, satisfied that this issue has to be redetermined by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. This issue is relevant only to determine as to who is liable to make the payment of compensation. Thus, it is the insurer, insured and the driver, who would appear before the Tribunal in this connection. As far as the claimants are concerned, their claim shall remain unaffected whatever may be the fate of this issue. 7. Accordingly, I dispose of this appeal by setting aside the findings of the Tribunal recorded under issue No. 4 and directing it to re-decide the matter keeping in view the observations made above. For this purpose, the insurance company, owner and the driver of the offending truck shall appear before the Tribunal, which shall determine as to who is to be held liable to pay the compensation. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Shimla v. Kamla & others, AIR 2001 SC 1419, initially in the first instance the compensation has to be paid by the Insurance Company. Vide order dated February 21, 1997 this Court had ordered the release of 50 per cent amount of compensation without security and the remaining 50 per cent against furnishing of adequate security by the claimants. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kamlas case (supra). Vide order dated February 21, 1997 this Court had ordered the release of 50 per cent amount of compensation without security and the remaining 50 per cent against furnishing of adequate security by the claimants. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kamlas case (supra). there is no necessity to furnish security even for the 50% amount of compensation. Accordingly, the security furnished by the claimants for the release of 50 per cent amount of compensation shall be released. 8. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the claimants, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side. A precious life of 14 years boy has been lost. Had he been alive, he would have been a support to his aged parents. However, in the absence of any concrete evidence against the value of the service rendered by the deceased the matter has to be decided on estimate only. In the circumstances of the case, I feel it appropriate to enhance the estimate of dependency from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- per month. On this basis and after applying a multiplier of 15, the compensation payable would work out to Rs. 90,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 90,000/-. 9. It is directed that the Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount of Rs. 36,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the actual date of payment with the Tribunal within four weeks from today for onward disbursement to the claimants. Cross-objections are partly allowed. No costs. Order accordingly.