JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.- These appeals, preferred under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are directed against the judgment and award dated 23.02.1988, passed in Motor Accident Case No. 08 of 1986 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Narain Singh (deceased) aged 21 years was travelling in truck registration No. U.R.B. 5970 on 18.08.1985 on Bhowanli-Haldwani Road. At about 7:00 AM. when the truck reached near Lariakanta bend, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver (Dhan Singh), an accident took place in which Narain Singh died. He was alleged to be a cleaner in the truck. The truck was owned by respondent Prem Singh and was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant in Appeal from Order No. 921 of 2001). Claimants/respondents Krishna Singh and Kasti Devi are parents of the deceased who filed a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.50,000/- under Section 110 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Respondent- Shri Prem Singh, owner of the vehicle admitted the contents of the claim petition. But he disowned the liability to pay the compensation, as the vehicle was insured with the aforesaid insurance company. The United India Insurance Company, contested the claim petition and denied that Narain Singh was employed as cleaner in the truck. It was also alleged by the said company that the owner of the vehicle and driver are in collusion. It is further pleaded by the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle was driving the truck without valid license and the terms of the insurance policy were violated by the insured. As such, the company is not liable to make any payment. 3. The tribunal framed following issues in the matter: 1. Whether Sri Narain Singh died in an accident involving truck registration No. U.R.B. 5970 ? 2. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. U.R.B. 5970 by its driver? 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by the opposite party No. 1 (Prem Singh) without having a valid driving license as alleged by the Insurance Company? 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and condition of the policy of the Insurance? If so, its effect? 5. 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by the opposite party No. 1 (Prem Singh) without having a valid driving license as alleged by the Insurance Company? 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and condition of the policy of the Insurance? If so, its effect? 5. To what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled? 4. The tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that Narain Singh died in the accident, as alleged in the claim petition. It further held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It further held that there is no evidence to believe that opposite party No.1 (Prem Singh), was driving the vehicle as such there is no question of driving the vehicle without valid driving license. It further held that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Considering the age of the deceased, the tribunal awarded Rs. 48,000/- as compensation with 10% interest per annum thereon to the claimants and directed the insurance company to pay the same. Aggrieved by said judgment and award dated 23.02.1988, an Appeal from Order No. 921 of 2001 (old No. 604 of 1988) was filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was being driven without valid driving license and in contravention with the terms of the policy. On the other hand, claimants filed an Appeal from Order No. 497 of 2001 (old No. 27 of 1989), for enhancement of the compensation. 5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company, argued before this Court that the vehicle was being driven at the time of the accident by Prem Singh who had no valid driving license. It is pertinent to mention here that Prem Singh is the owner of the vehicle. The burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the owner himself. In support of his contention. learned counsel for the insurance company, drew attention of this Court to the statement of D. W. 1 - Shri B.N. Joshi, who is Senior Assistant with United India Insurance Company. I have gone through the statement of said witness. In support of his contention. learned counsel for the insurance company, drew attention of this Court to the statement of D. W. 1 - Shri B.N. Joshi, who is Senior Assistant with United India Insurance Company. I have gone through the statement of said witness. D.W. 1- Shri B.N. Joshi, stated in his examination-in-chief that vehicle was being driven by Shri Prem Singh. However, this witness is not an eye-witness of the accident. D.W. 1- Shri B.N. Joshi in his cross-examination admits that he has not seen the occurrence. That being so, there is little value of the evidence given by D.W. 1 that the vehicle was being driven by the owner of the vehicle. This witness was put to a suggestion that driver Dhan Singh himsc1f after the accident submitted in writing that he, was the person who was driving the vehicle and in reply to this, the above witness, D.W. 1- Shri B.N. Joshi, has stated that he cannot deny it. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned tribunal has not committed any error of law in believing the statement of eye-witness- P.W. 1 Devendar Singh, who has stated that truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver- Dhan Singh. 7. Another contention of the learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company is that terms of the policy were violated by the insured. To elaborate this argument, learned counsel submitted that the deceased Narain Singh is none other than the brother of the owner of the vehicle. Assuming for a moment that the deceased is the brother of the owner of the vehicle in that case, it is hard to believe that the deceased was travelling in the truck after making any payment for travelling over ill.' If deceased was travelling in the truck of his elder brother then the risk was covered under the policy. D.W 1 Shri B.N. Joshi himself in his cross-examination says that under the impugned policy apart from driver and conductor two non-fair paying passengers were covered. As such, there cannot be said to be violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 8. Learned counsel for the c1aimant- Krishna Singh, argued that the compensation awarded to the claimant is too low. As such, there cannot be said to be violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 8. Learned counsel for the c1aimant- Krishna Singh, argued that the compensation awarded to the claimant is too low. I am unable to accept the submission for the reason that claimants are the parent of the deceased and on finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 700/- per month, as cleaner in the truck, their reasonable dependency to the extent of Rs. 200/- out of Rs. 700/-, has been rightly accepted by the tribunal. And after applying multiplier of 16, as the deceased was aged 21 years, Rs. 38,000/- has been awarded as a financial loss to the parents and Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock, agony on account of loss of their beloved son. In the circumstances, there is no error either of fact or that of law in awarding Rs. 48,000/- of the compensation in favour of the claimants to be paid by the United India Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured at the time of the accident. 9. Accordingly both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The appeals are dismissed. However, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum instead of 10% if amount still unpaid. No. order as to costs.