Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This civil first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award and judgment dated 20.9.2007 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baramulla in claim petition titled Dedri v. Habibullah Malla (for short `the impugned award). Brief facts: 2. One Prithipal Singh, a driver, was driving the truck bearing registration No. JK01-B 0566 on 9.0.1997 and caused an accident near Peeda Batote due to rash and negligent driving as averred. The offending vehicle/truck rolled down into river Chenab and the driver, Prithipal Singh; conductor, Farooq Ahmad Gujree and two passengers, namely, Ahmad Ali Hajam and Mohammad Maqbool Hajam died. The claimant-respondent No. 1, Dedri, being the mother of the deceased, Farooq Ahmad Gujree, conductor filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,30,000. It is averred in claim petition that deceased Farooq Ahmad Gujree was conductor by profession and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month and she has been deprived of hope, income and help during the old age. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners and appellant insurance company, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer. 3. Insurer appellant resisted the claim petition and disputed the liability by taking a defence that the driver, prithipal Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. The owners, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed reply and have stated that Habibullah Malla, respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. After filing of the written statement and documents, the following issues came to be framed: "(1) Whether on 9.6.1997 the vehicle bearing registration No. JK OI-B 0560 was driven rashly and negligently by Prithipal Singh in the employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fell down in the river Chenab near Peeda Batote causing death of Farooq Ahmad Gujree? OPP (2) In case issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR (4) Relief." 5. Claimant besides examining herself also examined Ghulam Qadir Hakeem, Ghulam Nabi Bhat, Bashir Ahmad Rather, Mohammad Abdullah Hajam as witnesses and also examined the respondent No. 2, Habibullah Malla as witness. 6. OPP (3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR (4) Relief." 5. Claimant besides examining herself also examined Ghulam Qadir Hakeem, Ghulam Nabi Bhat, Bashir Ahmad Rather, Mohammad Abdullah Hajam as witnesses and also examined the respondent No. 2, Habibullah Malla as witness. 6. The appellant insurer has examined 3 witnesses, namely, Rajani A. Thpuria, Traffic Clerk, Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam; Mohammad Latief Mir, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Peerzada Noor-Ud-Din, Licence Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Srinagar. Brief resume of the evidence of the claimant: 7. All the witnesses examined by the claimant deposed that driver Prithipal Singh has driven the offending truck rashly and negligently on 9.6.1997 at Peeda Batote and caused the accident. The vehicle rolled down into the river Chenab and driver Prithipal Singh; conductor, Farooq Ahmad Gujree and two other passengers, namely, Mohammad Maqbool Hajam and Ahmad Ali Hajam lost their lives. Deceased, Farooq Ahmad Gujree was conductor/cleaner by profession and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month and the claimant-respondent No. I, the mother of the deceased, was dependent on him. She has lost source of income, dependency, hope and assistance. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, Habibullah Malla who appeared as a witness has deposed that he had engaged Farooq Ahmad Gujree as conductor and was being paid Rs. 5,000 per month as salary. Habibullah Malla in his examination has further deposed that before engaging the driver, Prithipal Singh he had perused his driving licence and also conducted his test of driving by travelling with him in the vehicle from Srinagar to Pathankot and after he was satisfied that he was a competent driver and having driving licence engaged him as driver. He had not sold the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, i.e., the date of accident to Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, respondent No. 3. Brief resume of the evidence of appellant insurer: 8. RW 3, Rajani A. Thpuria, has deposed that the driving licence which was reportedly recovered from the deceased was not a genuine driving licence. Report was sought from the concerned District Transport Authority, Kamrup Guwahati by its investigator and the said authority made a report that no such licency was issued by it. Further stated that he does not know whether licence was renewed by the Regional Transport Officer, Srinagar. 9. Report was sought from the concerned District Transport Authority, Kamrup Guwahati by its investigator and the said authority made a report that no such licency was issued by it. Further stated that he does not know whether licence was renewed by the Regional Transport Officer, Srinagar. 9. RW 3, Mohammad Latief Mir, has deposed that licence was fake. 10. RW 3, Peerzada Noor-Ud-Din has deposed that he is not in a position to state that whether driving licence was genuine or otherwise. However, stated that licence stands renewed under No. 563/MVB/BK from 17.6.1996 to 18.6.1999 as is reflected in the relevant record. He further staled that renewal was made after completing all the procedural and codal formalities. 11. Mr. Khuroo, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, argued that the compensation awarded is on higher side and is not just and appropriate. The deceased was a conductor by profession and the compensation was to be awarded keeping in view the Schedule appended to the Workmens Compensation Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 argued that insurer had moved an application under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act for permission to defend the case on all grounds available to the owner-- came to be rejected, thus it is precluded from challenging the award on the grounds which are not available to the insurer. Issue-wise finding Issue No. 1: 13. There is ample evidence on the file that the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently during midnight on 9.6.1997, it rolled down into the river Chenab and caused accident. The fact of the matter is that rolling down of the offending vehicle-truck is not disputed. Thus, I am of the considered view that issue No. 1 came to be rightly decided by the Tribunal. Issue Nos. 2 and 3: 14. There is ample evidence on the file that mother of the deceased-Dedri has lost the source of dependency and deceased Farooq Ahmad Gujree was the only hope for her. Deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 per month and she stands deprived of her income. Admittedly he was 25 years of age and unmarried at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly held that mother claimant stands deprived of source of dependency to the tune of at least Rs. 2,000 per month. 15. Deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 per month and she stands deprived of her income. Admittedly he was 25 years of age and unmarried at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly held that mother claimant stands deprived of source of dependency to the tune of at least Rs. 2,000 per month. 15. While going through the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 17 whereas the just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the instant case was 16. 16. Appellant insurer cannot challenge the award on the adequacy of compensation. It has limited defence available as given in section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer had moved an application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend the claim petition on all grounds available to the driver and owner but came to be rejected by the Tribunal. 17. The question is who should have been saddled with the liability? Admittedly the vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time and the renewal of the licence is not fake but genuine. There is evidence on the file that the owner travelled with the driver in order to test that whether the deceased was a competent driver. Not only he has conducted the test but he has also perused and examined the driving licence and has satisfied himself that deceased was having a valid driving licence. 18. In the given circumstances, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner committed wilful breach in order to avoid liability. But insurer has not lead any evidence to that extent. Thus insurer is to be saddled with the liability. 19. Keeping in view the above discussion the finding returned by the Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos. 2 and 3 is upheld but with the modification that just multiplier applicable was 16. Accordingly the finding returned on the issue No. 2 is modified to the extent of using multiplier 17. Accordingly it is hereby held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000. 20. The Tribunal has also fallen in error while awarding interest at the rate of 9 per cent. The interest payable is at the rate of 6 per cent. 21. Accordingly the impugned award is modified and claimants are held entitled to Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000. 20. The Tribunal has also fallen in error while awarding interest at the rate of 9 per cent. The interest payable is at the rate of 6 per cent. 21. Accordingly the impugned award is modified and claimants are held entitled to Rs. 3,84,000 with 6 per cent interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization. 22. Appeal disposed of. Send down the record along with a copy of this judgment.