ORDER 1. This is an appeal of the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 7th February, 2005 passed in Claim Case No. 13/04 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena awarding a compensation of Rs.3,64,015/- to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. 2. Claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 are the parent and brothers of deceased Murarilal who was a driver of the truck bearing No. M.P. 07/G-0630 earning Rs.3,000/- per month and died in a accident took place on 22.2.2002 at 4.15 a.m. when a truck bearing No. UP-80/G-9651 owned by respondent No.6 and insured with the appellant driven in a rashly and negligently manner dashed against the truck M.P. 07/G-0630 at Atlas Tiraha, Morena as a result Morarilal died on spot. 3. Inter alia claiming compensation claim petition was filed. In the claim petition Insurance Company took a defence that the truck No. UP- 80/G-9651 was being driven by Narendra and a Narendra did not have a valid driving licence therefore Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The earnings of Murarilal was also disputed however after holding that the driver of truck No. UP-80/G-9651 - Narendra was not having a valid driving licence, the learned Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation on the ground that the Insurance Company has not proved violation of the policy conditions and the insurance policy is also not filed. Thereafter assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day and after applying the multiplier 15 compensation has been awarded. It is further directed that compensation shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and in case compensation is not deposited within 45 days interest at the rate of 7% per annum will be charged. 4. Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company invites my attention to the insurance policy Ex. D-l available on record and statement of the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company DW-l Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and submits that once the policy of insurance was filed and it is established that the driver was not having valid driving licence, imposing liabilities on the Insurance Company was unsustainable. That apart it is submitted by him that calculating the compensation by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is a perverse finding. That apart it is submitted by him that calculating the compensation by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is a perverse finding. It is also submitted by him that when claimants are parent then multiplier after considering the age of the parent has to be taken and by considering the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased, learned Tribunal has committed grave error. In support thereof he invites my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [2004 ACJ 448], U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others [1996 ACJ 831] and a Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Halkibai and another v. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another [ 2004 (2) JLJ 47 = 2003 (4) MPLJ 466 ] and submits that the award is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation awarded is liable to be decreased and liabilities should be imposed upon the owner of the vehicle. 5. Refuting the aforesaid Shri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits that as the Insurance Company did not examine the driver and official of the Regional Transport Office and therefore the finding with regard to driver of the vehicle having no valid driving licence is a perverse finding, liable to be rejected. That apart placing reliance on the judgments referred by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Basanti and others v. Ranjana Batra and others [2006 (III) ACC 76], a Division Bench of this Court in the case Damodar v. Rajendra Singh and others [ 2005 (1) JLJ 335 ] and in the case of Jyoti Kaul and others v. State of M.P. and another [ 2000 (2) JLJ 206 = 2000 ACJ 1368], Shri B.D. Verma, Advocate submits that the multiplier applied in the case is proper and no interference with regard to the quantum of compensation is warranted. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on a perusal the records it is seen that while considering the question of driver of the vehicle having valid driving licence in para 6 and 13 of the award learned Tribunal has found that Narendra, driver of the truck No. UP-80/ G-9651 was not having valid driving licence. It is found that in the documents seized by the police, the driving licence of Narendra is not seized. Accordingly, finding recorded is that the driver of the vehicle UP-80/G-9651 was not having a valid licence however after holding so liabilities is imposed upon the Insurance Company on the ground that Insurance Company has not proved the violation of terms and conditions of the policy. This finding is wholly perverse and contrary to the materials and documents available on record. Available on record is the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, defendant witness No. 1 who was working as Branch Manager of National Insurance Company, Morena, he has proved the Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 the report received from the office of the R.T.O. Both these documents indicate that the driver of the vehicle is not having a valid licence and there is violation of the policy conditions. In such circumstances holding the Insurance Company liable is clearly a perverse finding and is passed by totally ignoring the documents Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 and statement of DW-l -- Ashok Kumar Singh, accordingly the award so far as it holds the Insurance Company liable is unsustainable and is quashed. 7. It is held that as a driver of the vehicle in question UP-80/G-9651 was not having a valid licence liabilities to pay the amount of compensation is on the owner of the said vehicle/respondent No.6 Dharmendra Singh Tomar. However, in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2006 (III) MPWN 105 = 2006 (7) SCC 318 ] it is directed that Insurance Company shall satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter liberty is granted to Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle respondent No. 7 by initiating requisite execution proceedings in accordance with law. 8. Ltd. [2006 (III) MPWN 105 = 2006 (7) SCC 318 ] it is directed that Insurance Company shall satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter liberty is granted to Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle respondent No. 7 by initiating requisite execution proceedings in accordance with law. 8. As far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, income of the Murarilal is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day this is a reasonable finding and the same is based on the statement of his father claimant No.1 - Jagdish Singh recorded as PW-I and income certificate issued by his employer as Ex. P-l 0, accordingly I find no error in the assessment of compensation after considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Even otherwise deceased was a driver of the truck and it can be safely concluded that he was earning Rs.100/- per day with other additional allowances. 9. However while applying the multiplier of 15 learned Tribunal has only considered the age of the deceased whereas the principle laid down in the case of Jyoti (supra) is that for assessment of compensation in such cases the multiplier to apply has to be being considering the lower age of the parents. Even though in the case of Asha (supra) relied upon by Shri Verma, Advocate multiplier as per age of deceased has been considered but in this judgment it is further laid down that the facts and circumstances of each should be considered and then appropriate multiplier applied. It is seen in this case that the deceased Murarilal was unmarried, he was about 22 years old at the time of accident and claimants are his parent who are aged 55 years and 53 years respectively and other claimants are brothers and two of whom Munesh and Brajmohan were major at the time of accident. In such circumstances the multiplier to be adopted is to be based on the age of the parent and not the age of the deceased. Accordingly as the age of the mother at the relevant time was 53 years, the multiplier to be adopted would be 11 to that effect learned Tribunal has committed error in the matter of adoption of the multiplier. Accordingly as the age of the mother at the relevant time was 53 years, the multiplier to be adopted would be 11 to that effect learned Tribunal has committed error in the matter of adoption of the multiplier. Accordingly the compensation is assessed as under; Annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.36,000/- and after deducting 1/3 towards self expenses dependency would come to Rs.24,000x 11 =2,64,000/- to this a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate are to be added bring the total compensation to Rs.2,68,500/-. 10. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation assessed is reduced from Rs.3,64,015/- to Rs.2,68,500/-. The same shall be distributed among the claimants in the proportion as indicated in para 24 of the impugned award. However interest on the amount of compensation shall be at the rate of 6% per annum and direction to divert interest at the rate of 7% after 45 days being illegal, is also quashed. As already directed in para 6 above, Insurance Company the appellant herein shall satisfy the award as the first mistake thereafter they will have liberty to recover the amount from owner in the Truck No. UP-80/9651 i.e. respondent No.6. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid modification to the award without any order so as to cost.