Judgment :- 1. These appeals respectively by the Insurer and the claimants are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25th May 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.1286/2002, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), awarding compensation of a sum of Rs.3,18,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. While the Insurer has filed the appeal, questioning the liability fastened on it, the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation awarded is inadequate and needs enhancement. 3. The facts in brief are that, the claimants appellants herein are respectively the wife and two sons of the deceased Late Honnamaradi Papaiah. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 5:30 A.M. on 24-10-2002, when the deceased Papaiah and another were going in front of J.N. Sanna Thimmanna’s house on NH-13 road, Kalledevarapura Village to answer the nature call, the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-21/3980, came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, from Chitradurga side and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, he died on the spot. 4. It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was aged about 48 years, working as Peon in Grama Panchayath Office, Kalledevarapura and also an agriculturist, earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and he was contributing the entire sum towards the family requirements and an account of his untimely death, the family has become haywire, having lost its sole bread winner and also lost the social security and hopes and aspirations in life and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.09.70 lakhs against the Insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 25th May 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.3,18,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.3,18,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. While so awarding the compensation, the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the Insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, being aggrieved by that part of the judgment, the Insurer is in appeal seeking to set aside the same and being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The principal submission canvassed by Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for Insurer is that, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the Exhibits R1 to R4, which are the clinching material. Further, he drew out specific attention to Ex.R2-the endorsement issued by the RTO, Shimla, and submitted that, it is crystal clear that there is no licence No. S/32423/96 as such issued in the name of Surgeet Singh, by the said Office. Exs. R3 and R4 are the corresponding letters from the Office of the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Shimla. In spite of these clinching material coupled with the oral evidence of RW1, he submitted that, the Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability on the Insurer and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside, by modifying ht impugned judgment and award. Further, strongly relying upon the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in the case United India Insurance company Limited Vs. Lehru and others reported in 2003 ACJ 611, he drew our specific attention to paragraphs 15 and 17, and submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurer and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. As against this, learned counsel for claimants, inter alia tried to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal stating the same is passed in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. However, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month and the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and not adopting proper multiplier. However, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month and the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and not adopting proper multiplier. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for Insurer and learned counsel for claimants, for considerable length of time. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available before us, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are: I. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurer? II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?” Re-Point [I]. Learned counsel appearing for Insurer has strongly relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.R2 to R4. After microscopic evaluation of the same, it reveals that, Ex.R2 is the letter issued by the Advocate at Shimla to the licensing authority and the said licencing authority has issued an endorsement on the very letter that, the driving licence No.S/32423/96 dated 20-05-1996 of Sri.Surjeeth Singh, S/o. Sri Prem Singh has not been issued by that office as verified from the record of that office; and Ex.R3 is the letter issued by the said Advocate to the Insurance Company at Shimla, reporting that the said driving licence of Sri.Surjeeth Singh has not been issued by the Licencing Authority, Shimla and Ex.R4 is the letter issued by the Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company Limited, Timber House, Cart Road, Shimla to the Divisional Office of the said Company at Chennai. On the basis of these three documents, RW1, witness on behalf of the Insurance Company has stated that, the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms of the policy and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. However, it is significant to note that the said endorsement dated 12th November 2003 is alleged to have been issued by the RTO at Shimla in the letter head of Law Office of Rajvinder Sandhu, H.P.High Court, Shimla-1, on the basis of the request made by the counsel regarding verification of the driving licence bearing No.S/32423/1996. Shimla, issued in the name of Surgeeth Singh. Shimla, issued in the name of Surgeeth Singh. Here, it is relevant to note that, in normal course, the authorized competent authority, usually issues independent endorsement in their letterhead. But, in the instant case, the endorsement has been made on the very letter head of the Advocate, which cannot, under any circumstance, be accepted at all. The said aspect has been rightly considered and appreciated by the Tribunal and fastened the liability on the Insurer, holding that merely on the basis of Exs. R3 and R4, one cannot come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending lorry was holding a fake driving licence at the time of accident and that the owner of the offending vehicle had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, as rightly observed and pointed out by the Tribunal, the insurer has failed to examine the driver of the offending lorry and also the owner of the said vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has recorded a specific finding of fact, stating that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of paying compensation on the death of third party, involving the vehicle duly insured with it. The said finding recorded by Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be interfered with. However, so far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Lts. Vs. Lehru and Others (supra) is concerned, it can be seen that the Apex Court has held that the Insurance Company, in order to avoid its liability, has to prove that the driver was not duly licensed and that the owner-insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive, and even in such a case, the Insurance Company would remain liable to the third party, but however, it may recover the same from the insured. It is worth while to extract the relevant portion of the judgment which reads thus: Para.15 “xxx xxx xxx . The injured or relatives of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is worth while to extract the relevant portion of the judgment which reads thus: Para.15 “xxx xxx xxx . The injured or relatives of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the Company is of insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with that is laid down in aforementioned cases. Viz., that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured.” Para.17: “When an owner is hiring a driver, he will therefore, have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by the competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTO’s which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149 (2)(a) (ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of its liability. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149 (2)(a) (ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of its liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx “ (underlining by me) Accordingly, following the said verdict of the Honorable Apex Court, we hereby modify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, with a direction to the Insurer to satisfy the entire award and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, viz., the fourth respondent herein – M/s. Janatha roadways (P) Ltd. Re-Point [II]: The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 48 years, working as Peon in Grama Panchayath Office and also an agriculturist. The accident is of the year 2002. Therefore having regard to other relevant material available on file, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence, it does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeals filed by Insurer as well as the claimants stand disposed of. The impugned judgment and award dated 25th May 2005, passed in M.V.V.No. 1286/2002, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, stands modified, directing the Insurer to satisfy the entire award and thereafter, liberty is reserved to it to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, viz., the fourth respondent herein – M/s. Janatha Roadways (P) Ltd., The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains intact. The amount deposited by the Insurer is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.