JUDGEMENT Surjit Singh, J.: In the present appeal by New India Assurance Company, award dated 2.5.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, whereby a sum of Rs.2,09,600/- has been awarded by way of compensation, in favour of respondent Baldev Raj, hereinafter called claimant, is assailed, on the ground that the claimant being an unauthorized passenger on board the vehicle, in question, which was a goods carrier, and respondent Ramesh Chand, who was driver of the I truck at the time of occurrence being not possessed of a valid driving licence, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and hence the appellant was not liable to satisfy the award. Award is also sought to be assailed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 2. First the summary of the facts. Respondent Baldev Raj filed a petition, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries, he claimed to have sustained in an accident of truck No. HPA-9675, owned by respondent Jai Ram and driven by respondent Ramesh Chand. The truck, at the relevant time, was insured with New India Assurance Company. It was alleged that the claimant, Baldev Raj, was walking along the road, when the aforesaid truck hit him from behind and knocked him down, resulting in serious injuries on lower limbs, leading to disability to the extent of 34% in relation to the entire body and 98% in relation to the right lower limb. The truck, it was alleged was being driven in rash or negligent manner 3. The owner and the driver of the truck did not deny the occurrence of the accidence, though they did deny that the truck was being driven in rash or negligent manner. The appellant who was impleaded in its capacity as insurer, took various pleas available to it, under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and those relevant for the purpose of this appeal were that respondent Ramesh Chand, who was driving the truck, did not possess a valid driving licence and that the claimant was on board the truck as gratuitous passenger. An application was also moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking leave of the court, to take all those defences, which are available to the insured, on the plea that there was collusion between the claimant and the owner and the driver of the truck. In the reply also, it was pleaded that there was a collusion between the claimant on one side and the owner and the driver of the truck on the other. The learned Tribunal did not frame any issue, with respect to plea of collusion, nor did it pass any order on the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the end of the trial, the Tribunal held that the claimant was walking along the road, when he was knocked down by the truck and that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving the vehicle by respondent Ramesh Chand. The objections of the appellant that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence or that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger were dismissed. The claimant was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,29,600/- on account of loss of future earning, Rs.40,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of leg and Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of leg and Rs.20,000/- on account of claimants inability to look after the manage his agricultural land, due to disability resulting from the injuries. Though the total of amounts, to which the claimant was held to be entitled on various counts comes to Rs.1,89,600/- the Tribunal apparently committed an arithmetical error which adding up the count wise amounts and awarded Rs.2,09,600/-. 4. Though the total of amounts, to which the claimant was held to be entitled on various counts comes to Rs.1,89,600/- the Tribunal apparently committed an arithmetical error which adding up the count wise amounts and awarded Rs.2,09,600/-. 4. Though in the grounds of appeal it is alleged that the appellant had been permitted to plead all those defences, which were available to the insured and therefore, it (the appellant) is entitled to challenge the award of the Tribunal, even with regard to the finding as to the quantum of compensation, the fact is that no order was passed on the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, moved by the appellant Faced with this situation, the learned counsel representing the appellant urged that no order having been passed on application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act toe case be remanded to the Tribunal, for passing appropriate order on that application and to decide the claim petition afresh thereafter. The case is an old one. The accident took place, in the year 1995. Appeal has been pending in this court since 1997. Remanding of the case to the Tribunal, at this belated stage, would not advance the ends of justice. 5. From the record it is made out that the appellant was permitted to cross-examine the claimant and his witnesses, as also the witnesses of the owner and the driver of the truck, even with the respect to those parts of their testimony, which pertained to the quantum of compensation and the case of the accident as also the plea of the collusion. Thus, inspite of the fact that the Tribunal did not decide the application, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the insurer. In fact that record shows that the insurer had produced some witnesses before the Tribunal, but then its counsel chose not to examine those witnesses and gave them up. 6. In fact that record shows that the insurer had produced some witnesses before the Tribunal, but then its counsel chose not to examine those witnesses and gave them up. 6. The Tribunal has rejected the plea of the Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant, pertaining to the driving license, holding that though initially the licence, copy Ext R-2, was not genuine, it had later on been renewed by the Licencing Authority, Kalpa and the renewed was genuine as testified by RW-3 Sant Ram Shandil, employed as Superintendent with the said authority and so the licence was valid in view of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Limited V. Sucha Singh and others, (1994 (2) SLC 1005]. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal cannot be upheld in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Kamla and others [2001 ACJ 843], whereby the aforesaid judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been overruled with the observation that if such a proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. It has authoritatively been held that what was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity, at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. 7. However, the reversal of the finding of Tribunal that the licence was valid on account of genuine renewal, will not itself absolve the appellant of its liability to pay compensation money. The insurer, in addition to alleging and proving that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, was also required to plead or establish that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licenced driver or one who was not disqualified to drive the vehicle at the relevant time. The Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others [1(2004) CLT 1 (SC) has laid down this proposition of law. 8. The Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others [1(2004) CLT 1 (SC) has laid down this proposition of law. 8. In the present case neither the appellant, in its capacity as insurer, alleged that the insured was negligent or did not exercise reasonable care, nor did it lead any evidence in this behalf. The aforesaid proposition of law implies that the insured should be aware that the licence was fake or he could have easily found out that the licence was fake, but for his being negligent or for lack of exercise reasonable care on his part. In this case, the insureds son and power of attorney, namely Madan Manohar-RW-2 appeared and testified that at the time of engagement of Ramesh Chand as driver his licence had been seen which had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Kalpa. The licence, copy Ext.R2, is a duplicate one and it has been issued by the Licensing Authority, Kalpa. On the face of it, the licence does not appear to be fake. There is no material on record from which it may inferred that the insured. knew or could have known by exercise of reasonable care that the licence was fake. Consequently, it is held that the insured is not guilty of breach of the condition of the policy that the vehicle was to be driven only by a licensed driver. So the insurer/appellant cannot escape its liability to pay compensation, on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a person (sic-not) possessing a valid driving licence. 9. The contention that the claimant was on board the truck as a passenger is not borne out from the record. The claimant himself appeared as PW-3 and testified that he was walking along the road, when the truck hit him from behind. His testimony is corroborated by PW4 Prem Singh, who has testified that he was in the company of the claimant and that both of them were walking side by side along the road, when the accident took place. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the appellant The owner and the driver in their common reply admitted that the claimant was walking along the road when the accident occurred. So, the plea of the appellant that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, on board the truck, is also rejected. 10. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the appellant The owner and the driver in their common reply admitted that the claimant was walking along the road when the accident occurred. So, the plea of the appellant that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, on board the truck, is also rejected. 10. Turning to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the quantum of compensation being grossly on the higher side though from the perusal of the record it appears that the award of compensation on account of future loss of earnings, by taking into account the quantum of salary of the claiming, is not justified, yet the totally amount of compensation awarded to the claimant, i.e. Rs.1,89,600/- (wrongly calculated as Rs.2,09,600/- due to arithmetical error) is not excessive or on the higher side. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,29,600/- to the claimant, on account of future loss of earnings, taking the quantum of his salary, i.e. Rs.2700/- per month as the basis for working out this figure. There has not been any reduction in the income of the claimant from salary, due to physical disability resulting from the injuries sustained by him in the accident He continues to draw the same salary, which; he had been driving, when the accident took place and has also been getting the periodical increases. At the time of accident his salary was Rs.1958/- per month and at the time of recording of the evidence, it had gone up to Rs.2700/- per month, per deposition of PW-5 Dharmesh Kumar, a Clerk from Cantonment Board, Subathu, with whom the claimant is employed. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding any amount of compensation to the claimant, on account of future loss of earnings on account of salary. 12. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of pain, suffering. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding any amount of compensation to the claimant, on account of future loss of earnings on account of salary. 12. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of pain, suffering. Looking to the age of the claimant, which at the time of accident was just 30 years, the nature of the injuries which have caused permanent disability to the extent of 98% in respect of right leg and 34% in relation to the entire body, atleast a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- should have been awarded to him on this count Also the Tribunal has not awarded anything to the petitioner on account of medical expenses, special diet and travelling expenses incurred in respect of the journey performed by him and his attendants in connection with his treatment, though claimant, while appearing as PW-3 categorically stated that he had spent Rs.40,000/- on treatment, out of which only Rs.10,000/- has been reimbursed by his employer and he had also been traveling by Taxi to Chandigarh to get treatment. Admittedly, the claimant remained admitted to P.G.I., Chandigarh, for about a month and during this period atleast a sum of Rs.20,000/- might have been spent by his attendants, while staying; at Chandigarh and also on their journey. Another sum, of Rs.10,000/- can legitimately be presumed to have been spent on special diet, taken by the claimant. Further there is unchallenged testimony of the claimant that he owns 6-7 bigha of land and that the same has been rendered barren on account of his inability to cultivate the same, owing to the physically disability resulting from the injuries. The value of the labour put in by the claimant, in cultivating his land can legitimately be presumed to be Rs.1,000/- a month, if not more. The disability in relation to the entire body is 34%. That means he has sustained future loss of earnings, in respect of his agricultural land to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per annum. Considering his age, multiplier of 16 years purchase can legitimately be adopted and thus, the compensation payable on account of future loss of earnings from agricultural land comes to Rs.64,000/-. The claimant has also stated that the entire amount of medical expenses incurred by him, on his treatment, has not been reimbursed by his employer. Considering his age, multiplier of 16 years purchase can legitimately be adopted and thus, the compensation payable on account of future loss of earnings from agricultural land comes to Rs.64,000/-. The claimant has also stated that the entire amount of medical expenses incurred by him, on his treatment, has not been reimbursed by his employer. Thus the amount of compensation, as roughly worked out hereinabove, almost equals the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently the plea that the amount of compensation is disproportionately on the higher side, is also held to be without any merit. 13. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs.2,09,600/- having not been correctly aggregated and the correct total being Rs.1,89,600/- the appellant is to pay only the later stated amount together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.