1. On 16th June, 2000, the passenger vehicle bearing registration mark JK02D 7077 fell into a 200 feet deep gorge. The accident is attributed to the alleged negligence of the driver of the said vehicle. Some passengers lost their lives and some suffered injuries. Respondent No. 1 (for short "claimant") was one such passenger who suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. 2. Once recovered claimant filed claim petition before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short Tribunal), claiming therein compensation for an amount of Rs. 40,05,000/-. The basis of the filing of the claim petition is that the claimant because of the accident suffered compound fracture L1 with bladder disturbance and Monoplegia left leg. The claimant claimed to have suffered permanent disability of spine with limb. In the claim petition, monthly income was stated to be 15,000/- and age was stated to be 30 years. The basis of filing the claim petition was that because of the accident the claimant suffered permanent disability and was thus disabled to earn livelihood for himself and also for his family members. 3. The case FIR No. 54 of 2000 under Sections 279/337, 304-A RPC was registered with Police Station Jhajjar Kotli. The vehicle was admittedly insured on the date the accident took place. 4. On notice respondent No. 3, Insurance Company filed written statement/objections to the claim petition. 5. The appellant denied the claim put forth by the claimant in the claim petition as also disputed the basis thereof. One of the grounds taken in the objections was that the driver was not holding a valid driving license. 6. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 18.02.2002 framed five issues. The issue No. 3 provided as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability 7. The Learned Tribunal initially passed the interim award on 18.06.2003 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under no fault liability to the claimant. The said interim order has not been challenged by the appellant. The Learned Tribunal initially passed the interim award on 18.06.2003 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under no fault liability to the claimant. The said interim order has not been challenged by the appellant. While passing the interim award under no fault liability prima facie a view was taken by the learned Tribunal that as the insurance policy reveals that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured so the appellant company was liable to pay the interim award in an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant. 8. The claimant in support of his claim petition examined four witnesses which includes the statement of the claimant as well. The Insurance Company examined one clerk. 9. The claimant has succeeded in discharging the burden to prove the issues, whereas appellant has failed to prove the issues burden whereof was on it. 10. The learned Tribunal passed award for an amount of Rs. 7,05,800/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution till its final realization. The award has been passed on 26.12.2007 by the learned Tribunal. 11. The appellant being aggrieved of the said award has challenged the same inter alia on the grounds that one-third of amount from the award amount has not deducted by the learned Tribunal and that driver was not holding a valid driving licence, the effect whereof would be that the appellant company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 12. Heard learned counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 13. Mr. J. A. Kawoosa, learned counsel appearing for appellant while challenging the validity of the award passed by the learned Tribunal submitted that appellant company had discharged the burden of proving the issue No. 3 which provided whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and the Insurance company was not thus liable to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel further submitted that one-third of the award amount was required to be deducted by the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal having failed to do so has committed a mistake in law. Learned counsel also referred to and relied upon the case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2649 and case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) v. Charlie and another (respondents) reported in AIR 2005 SC 2157. Learned counsel also referred to and relied upon the case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2649 and case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) v. Charlie and another (respondents) reported in AIR 2005 SC 2157. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant be absolved to indemnify the insured and from paying the award amount. 14. Mr. Younis Bhat learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the claimant has succeeded in proving the claim petition on the basis of cogent and legal evidence which was lead before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant company has not succeeded in discharging the burden of proving issues which it was required to prove. Learned counsel also referred to and relied upon the case titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1831. 15. When an award is passed by the learned Tribunal, same can be challenged by filing an appeal as provided by Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988). Section 149 (2) of the Act of 1988 circumscribes and delineates the grounds on which the appeal can be filed by the Insurance Company. In terms of Section 147 read with Sub Section 1 of Section 149 of Act of 1988, the insurance company is statutorily liable to pay the insurance claim and/or to satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The right to file the appeal is conferred on the aggrieved party, and if the appeal is filed and the award impugned therein is stayed, then the award temporarily comes under eclipse until further orders from the appellate Court or until final disposal of the appeal. In such eventuality, the insurance company may not be held liable to satisfy the award. 16. The right to file an appeal being a right created by the statute, the appeal can be thus filed only on the ground available under the statute. The Insurance Company can defend a claim only on the ground mentioned in Sub Section 2 of the Section 149 of Act of 1988. The Insurance Company thus can file an appeal only on the limited grounds contained in the aforementioned provision. The Insurance Company can defend a claim only on the ground mentioned in Sub Section 2 of the Section 149 of Act of 1988. The Insurance Company thus can file an appeal only on the limited grounds contained in the aforementioned provision. The insurance company, however, can contest the claim and challenge the award on all the grounds or any other ground that are available to a person against whom the claim has been made if permission thereto is granted by the learned Tribunal in terms of Section 170 of the Act of 1988. Admittedly, no such permission has either been sought and granted by the learned Tribunal in this case. The appeal can be thus filed on the limited statutory grounds available to the Insurance Company. (2) (ii) of Section 149 of Act of 1988 provides that Insurance company can defend the claim petition if the person is not duly licenced. The appellant has raised the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid licence. Section 2(10) of the Act of 1988 defines "driving licence" to mean the license issued by the competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, a motor vehicle and same is reproduced as under: (10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle of any specified class of description." Chapter II of the Act of 1988 is a chapter relating to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 3 of the Act of 1988 provides for necessity for driving licence and same is reproduced as under: 3. Necessity for driving licence: (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 13 of Act of 1988 provides the extent of effectiveness of licences to drive motor vehicles and same is reproduced as under: 3. Extent of effectiveness of licences, to drive motor vehicles. A learners licence or a driving licence issued under this Act shall be effective throughout the India. Section 15 of the Act of 1988 deals with renewal of driving licence. Sub Section 6 of Section 15 provides that where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence. The said provision is reproduced as under: (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence. 17. The conjoint readings of the statutory provisions reveal that the driving license is the license issued by the competent authority under Chapter II. Section 3 provides that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license. Section 13 provides that a driving license issued under the Act shall be effective throughout the India. Sub Section 6 of Section 15 provides that there can be two authorities one issuing the driving licence and another renewing the same. In this case, appellant joined issue about the validity of driving licence of the driver on the ground that same has been renewed by some clerk and not by the issuing authority. The statutory scheme as referred to hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that a licence once issued is an effective licence throughout the territory of India and authority who renewed the same need not be the issuing authority itself. The appellant had to discharge the burden of proving the issue about the drivers licence has failed to do the same. A clerk has been examined as witness by the appellants who before the learned Tribunal deposed that driving license has been renewed by some clerk. The witness has not deposed that the authority who has renewed the licence was not authorized to renew the same. A clerk has been examined as witness by the appellants who before the learned Tribunal deposed that driving license has been renewed by some clerk. The witness has not deposed that the authority who has renewed the licence was not authorized to renew the same. From the perusal of the evidence of the said witness it cannot be said that the competent authority has not renewed the licence. In order to discharge the burden of proving the said issue, the appellant ought to have examined the authority who is designated to issue the driving licence and should have further proved that no other person was designated as an authority to renew the licence. The appellant has miserably failed to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving licence, the burden whereof was on it. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that the driver was not holding the valid driving licence at the time of accident thus fails. A presumption in law can also be drawn from the statutory provisions referred to herein above that the driver was duly licenced. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant that the learned Tribunal has not made one-third deduction from the income of the claimant. Learned counsel referred to Charliess case. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "6. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure." 18. The Honble Supreme Court has held that what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. The Honble Supreme Court has further ruled that the deduction would depend upon circumstances of each case. The Honble Supreme Court has not thus decided that in all circumstances and in all cases one-third deduction for personal expenditure is to be made from the income of the claimant. The Honble Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Varmas case had dealt with the situation at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment and even Charlies case has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Varmas case had dealt with the situation at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment and even Charlies case has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are reproduced as under: 11. "One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for ones own survival. Incidentally, we may notice that in the note appended to the Second Schedule, the amount of compensation arrived in the case of fatal accident claims is required to be reduced by one-third in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. A person, although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon the services of another, in our opinion, a direction to deduct one-third of the amount from his total income need not always be insisted upon." 12. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charile and anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 720] wherein 1/3rd was directed to be deducted towards personal expenditure, we do not find that any legal principle was laid down therein. It also does not appear that ;the premise on which such deduction is allowed and what would happen in a case, where such a premise does not exist, did not fall for consideration. In Charlie (supra), this court itself opined that in a case, where the injured had suffered 100% disability, the legal principle for determination of compensation applicable to a deceased can, in appropriate cases, taking note of all relevant factors be reasonably applied even in a case of totally permanent disabled person. This court referred to Halsburys Laws of England, Volume 34, para 98 wherein it was held that the multiplier may be increased where the plaintiff is a high tax payer. That principle is also applicable in this case. In Halsbury (supra), it was stated that in applying that structured formula it is assumed that the return on fixed interest bearing securities is so much higher than 4 to 5 per cent that rough and ready allowance for inflation is thereby made: It was stated: "14. That principle is also applicable in this case. In Halsbury (supra), it was stated that in applying that structured formula it is assumed that the return on fixed interest bearing securities is so much higher than 4 to 5 per cent that rough and ready allowance for inflation is thereby made: It was stated: "14. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency of the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (of that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." 19. The learned Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the claimant has suffered from permanent disability and is dependent upon service of another person in view of the injury suffered by him. In this fact situation it is not necessary to order for deduction of one-third of the amount from the total income of the claimant. 20. In view of the position obtaining in this case that the claimant has suffered permanent disablement and is life long dependant upon the attendant, does not warrant for deduction of one-third from the compensation allowed to him. 21. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this behalf is accordingly negatived. Learned counsel made an effort to challenge the quantum of compensation. The statute does not permit the appellant to throw any challenge to the quantum of compensation. The judgment in Smt. Pathak case relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant does not support such a contention. 22. The Doctor has deposed before the learned Tribunal that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability of spinal cord and has about 45% disability of spinal cord with one limb. Doctor further deposed that the claimant cannot attend day-to-day work and constantly need attendant as also requires frequent medical check ups because the bladder is not working properly. 22. The Doctor has deposed before the learned Tribunal that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability of spinal cord and has about 45% disability of spinal cord with one limb. Doctor further deposed that the claimant cannot attend day-to-day work and constantly need attendant as also requires frequent medical check ups because the bladder is not working properly. The Doctor has further deposed that the claimant need life long medical aid like waking chair, walking aids and medicines. Presiding Officer of learned Tribunal in the award has observed as under: "While recording statement it has been suo moto noted down that while deposing before the Tribunal the witness had to be provided due support and attention by an attendant which speaks about physical health of the injured." 23. For the above stated reasons, this appeal, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMP(s).