JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Accident Act, 1988, are directed against the judgment and award dated 20.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, (FT) No. 4, Udaipur in Accident Claim Case No. 294/2005. 2. The appeal No. 2542/2007 is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas the Appeal No. 17/2008 is filed by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation a sum of Rs. 7,58,000/- in favour of the claimants. 3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that on 10.3.2002 one Shri Prakhar Tyagi alongwih pillion rider Parag Pokharna while going for darshan to Pitambari Shaktipeeth situate at Datiya, on Gwalior-Jhansi route, were hit by a dumper No. MP-07-3510 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Rameshwar. The pillion rider Parag Pokharna succumbed to the injuries and therefore, his parents filed a claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 46,73,000/-. 4. The claim petition was contested by the respondent-insurer by filing a reply thereto. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 3 herein was proceeded as ex parte. The proceedings as against the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident were dropped on the request made on behalf of the respondent/claimants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: " 1- vk;k fnukad 10-3-2002 dks foi{kh la0 1 jkes'oj ds }kjk okgu la0 ,e0ih0 07th 3510 dks xQyr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k ijkx nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk vkSj mlds 'kjhj ij dze'k% lk/kkj.k vkSj xEHkhj pksVsa vkus ls mldh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k vius Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa crkbZ xbZ jkf'k :0 46]73]000@& ;k vU; dksbZ jkf'k izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ vkSj ;fn gkWa rks foi{khx.k fdl ftEes o fdruh\ 3- vk;k foi{kh chek dEiuh }kjk vius tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh chek dEiuh dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gS\ 4- nknjlhA " 6. Since, the owner of the vehicle was not contesting the petition therefore, an application was preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Insurance Company was allowed to contest the claim on all the grounds which are otherwise not available to it. 7. On behalf of the claimants, Paraslal Pokharna (AW-1) was examined as witness and Ex.l to Ex.37 were produced as documentary evidence. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. 8. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found the objection raised by the Insurance Company in terms that the driver was not holding the valid license not tenable and accordingly, decided the issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal arrived at finding that the accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the dumper driver. The compensation payable to the claimants was determined at Rs. 758000/-. The claimants were also held entitled for interest @9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 18.4.2003. Hence, these appeals. 9. In the first instance, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Learned counsel submitted that copy of the driving license No. 1014/]hansi/1997 produced on record was fake inasmuch as the original licence bearing the said number was issued in favour of one Shri Ramesh Rai Kawar whereas admittedly, the vehicle was being driven by one Shri Rameshwar. Learned counsel submitted that the licensing authority appeared in the witness box alongwith original record i.e. Licence Register and has categorically deposed that driving license No. 1014/Jhansi/1997 was issued in favour of Ramesh Rai Kawar. Learned counsel submitted that necessary information including the driving license of the driver of vehicle was demanded by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle so also from the driver of the vehicle by way of notice (Ex.9 and Ex. 12) but the same were not responded. Learned counsel urged that ignoring unambiguous evidence available on record, the Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding the issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant. 10. 12) but the same were not responded. Learned counsel urged that ignoring unambiguous evidence available on record, the Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding the issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant. 10. Learned counsel next contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. Learned counsel submitted that according to the claimant themselves deceased Parag was a student and having no income. The learned counsel urged that as per second schedule of the Act of 1988, a person who was having no income, his notional income could be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum for the purposes of determination of compensation but in the instant case, the Tribunal has erroneously determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal looking to the age of the parents of the deceased is also on the higher side. Learned counsel submitted that the claimants were only the parents of the deceased and obviously, the chances of deceased getting married and raising own family could not be ignored and therefore, he would not have contributed ⅔rd of his income to his parents. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that Vt amount was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the driver of the vehicle possessing a valid driving license is based on the appreciation of evidence on record in its entirety and objectivity and cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in the lower side. Drawing the attention of this Court to the documentary evidence on record, learned counsel submitted that deceased Parag was a brilliant student of Bachelor of Information Technology Course conducted by Jeevaji University, Gwalior and was likely to earn a good pay-package in the field of information and technology on the completion of the course and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in the lower side. Learned counsel submitted that while determining the compensation the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased and therefore, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 13. The respondent Insurance Company has questioned the genuineness of the driving licence, photo stat copy whereof was place on record, on the basis of investigation made by its investigator, the record of the licencing authority i.e. Driving Licence Register' and deposition of Ramji Rawat (NAW-3), an employee working as incharge licence in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi. 14. A perusal of the photo stat copy of the licence, alleged to have been issued in favour of the driver of the vehicle Ramehswar is placed on record as (Ex.5) which appears to have been issued by the Licencing Authority of Jhansi. On inquiiy being made by the investigator of the Insurance Company, it was revealed that though in the licence issued, the name of the licence is mentioned as Rameshwar but as per the record of the Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi, said licence is issued in the name of Ramesh Rai Kawar S/o Maharaj Rai Kawar R/o Hasari District Jhansi. The photostat copy of the relevant page of the register containing the details of the aforesaid licence (Ex. 15A) also reveals that the licence was issued in the name of Ramesh Rai Kawar S/o Maharaj Rai Kawar. As per the entries in the register the licencee was authorised to drive the heavy transport vehicle w.e.f 24.4.1998. As per the copy of the licence placed on record also such authorisation was made on 24.4.1998. As per the certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle, on the date of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the driver Rameshwar S/o Maharaj Singh. In the arrest memo also the name of driver is mentioned as Rameshwar S/o Maharaj. Photograph of the licencee appearing on the photostat copy of the licence and the photograph available on the record of the licensing authority, appears to be of the same person. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact that whether the licence produced is genuine or not could have been verified only on production of the original licence and by summoning the licence as witness before the Court. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact that whether the licence produced is genuine or not could have been verified only on production of the original licence and by summoning the licence as witness before the Court. Suffice is to say that on the basis of the documentary evidence on record, no inference can be drawn that the photostat copy of the licence exhibited in evidence is fake and the person who was driving the vehicle, was a person different than the person in whose favour licence No. 1014/Jhansi/97 was issued by the Licensing Authority. Thus on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 cannot be said to be erroneous, capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, indisputably, the deceased Parag was having bright academic career. He was first divisioner through out and also received many certificates of merits during his academic career. He was pursuing the studies of Bachelor of Information Technology and therefore, undoubtedly had bright prospects of substantial earning. It is true that while determining the compensation payable the income of deceased as on date of accident is taken into consideration. But then, the Tribunal while determining the compensation has to keep in view that the claimants are awarded a just and reasonable compensation looking to the future prospects of the deceased. In considered opinion of this Court, looking to the academic career of the deceased, the notional income a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side. It appears to be just and reasonable and does not warrant enhancement either. However, deceased Parag was bachelor and the dependents being his parents, one-half amount was required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as against one third deducted by the Tribunal therefore, the annual loss of dependency comes to t 36000/- instead of 48000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. Looking to the age of mother of the deceased i.e. more than 40 years the multiplier of 14 should have been applied instead of 15. Consequently the amount of compensation payable forwards the loss of dependency comes to Rs. Looking to the age of mother of the deceased i.e. more than 40 years the multiplier of 14 should have been applied instead of 15. Consequently the amount of compensation payable forwards the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 504000/- as against Rs. 720000/- determined by the Tribunal. Adding the amount of Rs. 38000/-awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 542000/- 16. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. in view of the discussion above, the appeal No. 17/2008 preferred by the appellant Insurance Company is partly allowed. The appeal No. 2542/2007 preferred by the appellants/claimants is dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified in terms that the respondents/non-claimants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation a sum of Rs. 542000/- to the claimants. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% as determined by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 18.4.2003. The amount of compensation after adjusting amount already paid, shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company within a period of three months failing which the same shall carry interest @ 12%. On amount being deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in the manner as directed by the Tribunal.No orders to costs.Appeal No. 17/2008 Partly Allowed and Appeal No. 2542/2007 Dismissed. *******