Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. Both the appeals are at the instance of the State Transport Corporation contending both on the issue of negligence and the quantum. 2. FAO No.7025 of 2010 arises out of an award for compensation for death of a person who was travelling in a motor cycle along with the injured, which is subject matter of appeal in FAO No.7025 of 2010. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when both the injured and the deceased were travelling in a motor cycle and they were supposed to have been hit from behind by the State Transport Corporation bus. The eye witness account was that after causing the accident, the driver of the bus got down from the bus and ran away from the spot. FIR was lodged immediately after the accident. As against the evidence tendered on behalf of the claimant, the suggestion put to him was that the driver of the motor cycle was himself negligent. The Tribunal rejected such a line of defence also as one without any pleadings. Even as regards the contention that the vehicle had not been involved at all in the accident, the Tribunal reasoned that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus had himself not examined to tender evidence that he had not caused any accident. Non-examination of a driver in such a case was crucial and the finding that the State Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and the driver was negligent cannot, therefore, be assailed. I affirm the said finding and hold that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus was negligent and the vehicle had been involved in the accident. 3. The issue will not be complete without adverting to the contention made by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the driver of the motor cycle hadnot been shown to have had a driving licence to drive the motor cycle. The concept of contributory negligence cannot be inferred or presumed in cases where a person involved in the accident did not have a driving licence. This issue is again no longer res integra and this has been considered by this Court itself in Mohinder Singh Sohal v. Ramesh Kumar, A.I.R. 1981 (P&H) 199. The concept of contributory negligence cannot be inferred or presumed in cases where a person involved in the accident did not have a driving licence. This issue is again no longer res integra and this has been considered by this Court itself in Mohinder Singh Sohal v. Ramesh Kumar, A.I.R. 1981 (P&H) 199. There are decisions of other Courts as well taking up the same line of reasoning that want of driving licence will not be itself an inference on contributory negligence. (Please see also Gujarat State Transport Corporation v. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji, 2000 A.I.H.C. 3117 (Guj); New India Assurance Company Limited v. Bundel Singh Panwar, A.I.R. 2007 Uttranchal 18; Manjo Bee v. Sajjad Khan,4 2007 A.C.J. 737 (M.P.) and Sukhbir. v. National Insvrance Co, Ltd., 2006 A.I.H.C. 3587. It is also contended by him that the motor cycle was not even shown to have been insured. Even this is irrelevant and what applies to the issue of want of driving licence also would apply to an issue of driving of an uninsured vehicle as far as the finding of negligence is concerned. (Please see: Shankhardhar Singh v. Kundanlal, 1990(2) A.C.C. 254 (M.P.). I, therefore, reject the plea of contributory negligence also and I find that the negligence shall have to be taken as fully established against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation claimed on behalf of the claimants for the deceased, the evidence was that he was 38 years of age and earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. There was no documentary evidence for such a contention but the Tribunal reasoned that a semiskilled worker even in a rural areas would earn around Rs.3500/- and assessed the compensation on such a basis by applying a multiplier, of 15 and takting the contribution to the family at 2/3rd of his income. I do not find any error in the estimation made by the Tribunal and I hold the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as just compensation. 5. As regards the claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant had extensive injuries which were brought out through evidence that when the claimant was admitted he was bleeding from ear and nose and he had suffered injuries on his back, left foot, scalp and right shoulder. 5. As regards the claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant had extensive injuries which were brought out through evidence that when the claimant was admitted he was bleeding from ear and nose and he had suffered injuries on his back, left foot, scalp and right shoulder. He was shifted to Sai Heart and Trauma Centre where he was operated upon and treated. Dr. Rakesh Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Trauma Centre had given evidence to the effect that the claimant had been admitted in the hospital on 28.04.2009 and was discharged on 09.05.2009 vide discharge receipt P-16, He had also deposed that the claimant had been operated upon on 29.04.2009 for left frontal cratonomy and EDH decompression. The pain component for a person, who had suffered injury in the head must have been enormous and the Tribunal while determining the compensation awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. He was also a plumber and there was evidence that he had remained without employment for nearly three months. The Tribunal, therefore, provided for loss of income calculated at the rate of Rs.3500/-, provided for Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges and provided the actuals of treatment expenses at Rs.73,530/-. The overall compensation which is awarded at Rs. 1,24,000/- had addressed all the relevant heads of the claim and the compensation awarded was again just compensation. I find no scope for interference in either of the two cases. 6. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.