JUDGMENT : YATINDRA SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ. The Facts : 1. Lakshman Prasad (the Deceased) was going on the Jeep No. URV-9083 (the Jeep) on 30th January, 2000 from Allahabad to Kanpur. The tanker No. UP 78B-7839 (the Tanker) was coming from Kanpur side. It hit the Jeep. In the accident, the deceased received fatal injuries and died. 2. The sons and daughters (the claimants) of the deceased filed the claim petition No. 182 of 2000 for compensation. 3. The claimants examined the following witnesses : Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) : Son of the Deceased; Vinod Kumar (PW-2) : Eye witness; Rajendra Kumar alias Panna Bhaiya (PW-3) : Muneem of the deceased. 4. Amongst other documents, the claimants filed the following documents : Copy of the FIR dated 30th February, 2000; Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 19th February, 2000; Copy of Post Mortem Report; Copy of Form of Certificate of Registration; and Copy of Receipts of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. 5. The claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge Court No. -10, Allahabad (the Tribunal) on 29th May, 2000 for Rs. 2,24,500 alongwith 9% per annum interest from the date of filing the claim petition. 6. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the Company) is the insurer of the Tanker. It has filed FAFO No. 1462 of 2001 against the award. The claimant, have filed FAFO No. 937 of 2005 against the award for enhancement. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7. We have heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Company and Sri Satish Madhyan Counsel for the Claimants. The following points arises for determination : (i) Whether the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the driver and owner of the Jeep were not made parties in the claim petition; (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper; (iii) Whether the driver of the Tanker had licence and in case he had no licence then what is its effect; 1st POINT: PETITION CANNOT BE DISMISSED 8. Vinod Kumar (PW-1) is an eye witness of the incident. He stated that the Tanker was being driven negligently and incident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the Tanker. 9. The FIR dated 30th January, 2000 and the charge-sheet dated 19th February, 2000 are also on the record of the case. Vinod Kumar (PW-1) is an eye witness of the incident. He stated that the Tanker was being driven negligently and incident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the Tanker. 9. The FIR dated 30th January, 2000 and the charge-sheet dated 19th February, 2000 are also on the record of the case. In the FIR also it is mentioned that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker. The charge-sheet is also against the driver of the Tanker. 10. In view of above, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that accident took place due to negligent driving of the Tanker. 11. In case the driver of the Tanker was negligent, then the driver or owner of the Jeep were not a necessary parties. The claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the driver or owner of the Jeep were not impleaded as parties. 2nd POINT: COMPENSATION ENHANCED 12. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that age of the deceased was 50 years. In the post mortem the age of the deceased was mentioned 52 years. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 11 while calculating the compensation. In our opinion, it is correct. Now the question is, what was family dependency? 13. Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) is son of the deceased. He deposed that: His father had two Arhat one was at Allahabad and the other was at Fatehgarh district- Farrukhabad; His father was also MES contractor in Fatehgarh; 14. Rajendra Kumar alias Panna Bhaiya (PW-3) stated that: He was Muneem of the deceased; He was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month, cloths and Rs. 10 per day for expenses; The Deceased had Arhat and was MES contractor. 15. The Claimants have also filed the certificate of registration as well as receipt of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. It is on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that the Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that the deceased had two Arhat and was doing business. 16. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month on the basis of evidence given by his son Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- from the Arhat. 17. The accident took place in the year 2000. Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) was examined in the year 2000 itself. 16. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month on the basis of evidence given by his son Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- from the Arhat. 17. The accident took place in the year 2000. Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) was examined in the year 2000 itself. He was a young man at that time and his mother was also not alive. He may be earning Rs. 2,000/- but this does not mean that the deceased was only earning Rs. 2,500/-. He had no experience at that time. It could be because of his inexperience. 18. Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) as well as Rajendra Kumar alias Panna Bhaiya (PW-3) have stated that the deceased was giving income tax. However, no income tax return was filed. 19. Nevertheless, the Muneem (PW-3) was examined. He stated that he was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month from the Deceased. Considering the entire aspect that the Deceased had two Arhat and was registered as MES contractor, it cannot be said that the Deceased was earning less than Rs. 4,000/- per month. And it would be proper to calculate the family dependency on the footing that the Deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/-per month. In such an event, the family dependency would be Rs. 4,000/-x 2 x 12 x 11 / 3 = Rs. 3,52,000. 20. The Tribunal below has given Rs. 2,000/- for funeral and Rs. 2,500/-for loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation that the Claimants are entitled to is Rs. 3,56,500. 21. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,24,500/-. In view of our finding that the Claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,56,500/-, they are further entitled to Rs. 3,56,500 - Rs. 2,24,500 = Rs. 1,32,000/-. The Claimants will also be entitled interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition. 3rd POINT : COMPANY HAS RIGHT OF RECOVERY 22. The Tribunal has also recorded finding that the Tanker was insured with the Company. No argument has been advanced so far as this aspect is concerned. This finding is upheld. 23. 3rd POINT : COMPANY HAS RIGHT OF RECOVERY 22. The Tribunal has also recorded finding that the Tanker was insured with the Company. No argument has been advanced so far as this aspect is concerned. This finding is upheld. 23. The Counsel for the Company submits that: There was no driving licence with the driver of the Tanker; The burden was upon the owner and driver of the Tanker to prove that the driver has licence; No license was filed and the Company cannot be burdened with the liability. 24. The Tribunal framed Issue No. 3 on this question. It has held that the burden was upon the Company to show that the Tanker was being driven by the person who did not have valid licence. This is not correct. 25. Whether the driver had valid licence or not, was in the exclusive knowledge of the driver of the Tanker. The burden was upon the driver or the owner of the Tanker to prove that the driver had valid licence (See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Pal Singh and another, 2003 (3) T.A.C. 849 (All.) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Indrasani Devi and others, 2006 (1) T.A.C. 261 (All.). Neither any driving licence was produced on their behalf nor any witness was examined. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Tanker was not being driven by the person having valid licence. 26. The Tanker was insured. In view of this, it would be appropriate that the Company may pay the compensation awarded and thereafter recover it from the owner of the vehicle. CONCLUSION 27. Our conclusions are as follows : (a) The accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the Tanker; (b) The claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that neither the driver nor owner of the Jeep was impleaded as the parties; (c) The award is enhanced. The claimants are further entitled to sum of Rs. 1,32,000 alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, it is clarified that this does not affect 9% interest awarded on Rs. 2,24,500/- by the Tribunal below; (d) There is nothing to show that the driver of the Tanker had valid licence. The Company after paying the compensation would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the Tanker. 28. However, it is clarified that this does not affect 9% interest awarded on Rs. 2,24,500/- by the Tribunal below; (d) There is nothing to show that the driver of the Tanker had valid licence. The Company after paying the compensation would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the Tanker. 28. In view of our conclusions, both the appeals are partly allowed. The statutory amount deposited here may be sent to the Tribunal below for adjustment. Appeals partly allowed.