JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of his wife Guddi, who was killed when jeep No. DL-3CF/7235, in which she was travelling alongwith the claimant-appellant and others met with an accident with Tata Canter No. HR- 22/9771 being driven by Manphool, respondent No. 1 on 5.9.1994. Soon after the accident, Guddi was brought to the General Hospital, Hansi where she succumbed to her injuries. Compensation of Rs. 5 lacs was claimed by her husband under various heads pleading that she had a income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 2. The respondents filed a joint written statement and while admitting the accident in question controverted the claim and denied that the two vehicles had been driven in a rash an negligent manner. The Insurance Company, which had insured both the vehicles however denied the claim in totality. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle TATA-608 bearing R.C. No. HR-22/9771 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP. 2. To what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled to ? OPP. 3. Relief. 4. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of Manphool, the driver of Canter No. HR-22-9771. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal found that the age of the deceased at her death was about 22 years but the claim to an income of Rs. 2000/- per month by plying a bullock cart and supplying sand could not be believed in the absence of any proper evidence, but the Tribunal took Rs. 1200/- P.M. as her monthly earning as a female unskilled labourer. The Tribunal, however, observed that as the appellant was a young man, it could not be said that he was dependent on his wife, although compensation was payable on account of the loss of love and affection and some financial loss on account of her death. 1200/- P.M. as her monthly earning as a female unskilled labourer. The Tribunal, however, observed that as the appellant was a young man, it could not be said that he was dependent on his wife, although compensation was payable on account of the loss of love and affection and some financial loss on account of her death. The Tribunal also observed that it appeared that Manphool (respondent No. 1) did not have a valid driving licence as the licence produced by him had not been issued by the Licensing Authority to whom it pertained, but in the absence of proper evidence, this fact had not been clearly proved. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Sucha Singh and another, 1994(1) PLR 140 to hold that as the aforesaid licence had been validly renewed from 17.10.1993 to 16.10.1996, the licence even if was fake, had got validity and as such, it had to be held that it was a valid driving licence. The Tribunal accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 88,000/- to the claimant on account of death of his wife, to be recovered jointly and severely from all the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 5. This appeal has been filed by Pushpinder Singh claimant. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have not put in appearance. I have, therefore, chosen to go into the matter myself. I am of the opinion that no further enhancement in the amount of compensation is called for and that the findings recorded by the Tribunal warrant no interference. The deceased, who has the wife of the claimant, was 22 years of age at the time of her death. As the claimant himself was young man and capable of maintaining himself, it cannot be said that he was dependent upon his wife. A sum of Rs. 68,000/- awarded on account of loss of love and affection and some financial loss is, thus, adequate. I am also of the opinion that in the light of the certificate (Ex.R-2), it cannot be said that the driving licence produced by Manphool (respondent No. 1) was not a genuine one and the mere fact that it was subsequently renewed by the competent authority would not make it a proper licence and in view of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla Devi, JT 2001(4) SC 236 the judgment in Sucha Singhs case (supra) is not applicable. It is accordingly directed that the compensation, as mentioned above, would be payable initially by the Insurance Company, but it will be entitled to recover the same from the driver and owner of Canter No. HR-22/9771. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. Appeal dismissed.