The dependents of Shri Mohammad Ilyas Beigh, who on 14th June, 2005 lost his life in a vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, claiming an amount of Rs. Twenty lakhs, as compensa­tion on account of loss of income, future pros­pects loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and other available grounds, from the Insurance Company with which the of­fending vehicle was insured. The claim petion was registered as claim petition No. 200/2005. 2. Ms. Aftaba Nazneen travelling with her husband Mohd. Ilyas Beigh as pillion rider on his scooter at the time of accident, got seriously injured in the accident and filed a claim petition for award of Rs. Ten lakhs, on account of permanent disability due to the vehicular accident, hospitalization, Medical treatment etc. The claim petition was regis­tered as claim petition No. 201/2005. 3. The Insurance Company-appellant herein, resisted both the claim petitions inter alia on the grounds that the driver of the of­fending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of acci­dent and that as the vehicle was not having valid route permit and Fitness Certificate at the time of accident, the owner of the ve­hicle was guilty of breach of policy condi­tions and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal, on perusal of the plead­ings settled following issues : "Issue No. 1 :- Wheter on 6-6-2005, the petitioner while travelling with her husband on a scooter as a pillion rider from Soura to­wards Nowhatta were hit near Hawal by ve­hicle with registration No. 40-HP/3472 com­ing from the opposite direction while being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, (respondent No. 2) with the result that both, she and her husband were injured whereas her husband expired on 16-6-2005, whereas, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries re­sulted into permanent disablement ? OPP. Issue No. 2 :- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, on account of the injury sustained and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP." In claim petition No. 201/2005, the fol­lowing additional issue was framed; "Issue No. 3 :- Whether the respondent No. 2 was travelling unauthorized in the of­fending vehicle in contravention of the policy of the Insurance and as such, the respondent/company is not liable by the contract of In­surance ? OPR-3. 5. OPP." In claim petition No. 201/2005, the fol­lowing additional issue was framed; "Issue No. 3 :- Whether the respondent No. 2 was travelling unauthorized in the of­fending vehicle in contravention of the policy of the Insurance and as such, the respondent/company is not liable by the contract of In­surance ? OPR-3. 5. The issue did not find place in list of issues in claim petition No. 200/2005. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of evi­dence adduced by the parties, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,62,000/- in favour of the claimants in claim petition No. 200/2005 and an amount of Rs. 1, 42,000/- in favour of claimant in claim petition No. 201/2005. The awards passed in claim petitions 200/2005 and 201/2005 dated 30-5-2009 are assailed through medium of two separate Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals registered as CIMA Nos. 193/2009 and 194/2009, on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreci­ate that the driver of the offending vehicle had the driving license to drive medium goods vehicle (MGC) heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and heavy passenger service vehicle (HPSV) and not the driving license to drive Load Carrier 407 - a light motor vehicle (LMV) involved in the accident and that the owner of the vehicle by entrusting the ve­hicle to a driver not having an effective driv­ing license committed breach of the policy conditions. It is insisted that the Tribunal re­lying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kusum Rai's case (2006) 4 SCC 250 : (AIR 2006 SC 3440) ought to have held the owner of the vehicle - respondent No. 8 in the petition to have violated the terms and con­ditions of Insurance Policy and to be respon­sible to pay the compensation to the victims of the accident. The Tribunal, it is pleaded, has erroneously and oblivious settled legal position saddled the appellant with the re­sponsibility to pay compensation to the re­spondents 1 to 6. 7. It is next pleaded that the compensa­tion awarded is exorbitant, excessive and unjust. The Tribunal, according to the appel­lant erroneously applied multiplier of 13 least realizing that the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of accident and the multiplier of 7 was applicable, having regard to the date of the retirement of the deceased. The appel­lant is also not satisfied with the gross salary taken into account by the Tribunal while working out the loss of income. The appel­lant is also not satisfied with the gross salary taken into account by the Tribunal while working out the loss of income. It is pleaded that the Tribunal instead of gross salary of Rs. 11023/- ought to have taken into account, take home salary of the deceased and thereafter computed his annual income. The award of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 40,000/- on account of love and affection, Rs. 50,000/- on account of improv­ing family assets and Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses are also questioned by the appellant. 8. In CIMA No. 194/2009 titled National Insurance Company v. Aftaba Nazneen, the appellant in addition to the grounds urged in CIMA No. 193/2009 pleads that the respondent No. 1 having failed to prove any per­manent disability, it was not open to the Tri­bunal to award Rs. 50,000/- on said count. It is pleaded that the award of 62,000/- on ac­count of domestic help and medicine was not justified on the evidence brought on the file. 9. Heard and considered. 10. The main plank of the appellant's case in both the Civil 1st Miscellaneous appeals is that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not having driving license of the description as would entitle him to drive the offending vehicle. It is not denied that the driver was having valid driving license at the time of accident. However, it is pleaded, that while the driver of the ve­hicle was in terms of license in his posses­sion permitted to drive a medium goods ve­hicle (MGV), heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and heavy passenger service vehicle (HPSV) yet the Driver was not competent to drive a Load Carrier that under rules qualifies to be a light motor vehicle (LMV). There is no scope for any disagreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the driver must have the license that permits him to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, in case the Driver has license of a different description that entitles him to drive a particular type of vehicle but not the type of vehicle involved in the accident, the driving license possessed by the driver is to be held ineffective. 11. 11. In Oriental Insurance Company v. Zaharulnisha, AIR 2008 SC 2218 , the driver of the scooter that caused accident resulting in death to a cycle rider, was not holding li­cense to drive the scooter but had a license to drive the heavy motor vehicle. The driver of the offending scooter was thus driving to­tally different class of vehicle in violation of Sections 10 (2) of the M.V. Act. It was held that in light of the settled proposition of law, the Insurance Company was not to be held liable to pay the compensation to the claim­ants for the death of the cycle rider, due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by a person, who admittedly had not the driv­ing license to drive the Scooter. It was held that the scooterist was possessing driving li­cense for driving heavy motor vehicle (HMV) a totally different class of vehicle, which act was in violation of Section 10 (2) of the Act. The principle of law was reiter­ated in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, AIR 2008 SC 2266 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. KaushalyaDevi, 2008 AIR SCW4025 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2252 ). 12. However, the law laid down in afore­mentioned cases is of no help to the appel­lant for the simple reason that the appellant has felt contended with mere pleading that the driver of offending vehicle did not have effective driving license without any proof to establish such pleadings before the Tribu­nal. The appellant was required to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having license of the description as would entitle him to drive the offending vehicle or that the offending vehicle was not having valid route permit and Fitness Certificate. It would be advantageous to extract following from the judgment impugned in the appeal. ".....The respondent Insurance Company has not placed on record any route permit or copy of the Insurance contract where the terms and conditions are ironed out. Instead the company has placed on record only the cover note of the policy of Insurance with regard to the offending vehicle. The offend­ing vehicle as per this cover note has been insured on the date of accident in the name of the respondent owner Smt. Suman Gupta. Instead the company has placed on record only the cover note of the policy of Insurance with regard to the offending vehicle. The offend­ing vehicle as per this cover note has been insured on the date of accident in the name of the respondent owner Smt. Suman Gupta. Admittedly Tata 407, the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, but no evidence is on the file which could classify the load carrier as being a light motor vehicle. The light motor vehicle can be classified only on the basis of weight. The Insurance Company has failed to establish that the laden weight of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was such which falls in the category of light Motor vehicle. The cover note also do not disclose the conditions of the contract thus, it is not proved what conditions of the Insur­ance contract were violated by the insured. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold : Since respondent Insurance Company has not established violation of any of the clauses of Insurance Policy, neither the incapability of the respondent driver to ply the Tata 407, (the offending vehicle) on the date of acci­dent, it cannot be said that the insured had engaged a driver with ineffective driving li­cense for plying the same and such engage­ments of the driver was main cause which contributed to the cause of accident." 13. In the circumstances, while there can be no dispute with the legal prepositions that the Insurance Company to be saddled with the liability to indemnify the insured, the driver of the offending vehicle must have a valid and effective driving license, yet in absence of reliable and credit-worthy evi­dence that in the case in hand the offending vehicle was of a type of different from the vehicle, the respondent No. 7 was compe­tent to drive, the appellant cannot wriggle out of its responsibility to indemnify the in­sured and pay compensation assessed by the Tribunal to the respondents 1 to 6. 14-15. This takes us to the next limb of the appellant's case pertaining to quantum of the compensation awarded. 16. The evidence brought on the file es­tablishes that the deceased was 49 years of age on the day of accident, was working as Electric Mechanic in the SKIMS, Soura drawing monthly Rs. 11023/- per month. 14-15. This takes us to the next limb of the appellant's case pertaining to quantum of the compensation awarded. 16. The evidence brought on the file es­tablishes that the deceased was 49 years of age on the day of accident, was working as Electric Mechanic in the SKIMS, Soura drawing monthly Rs. 11023/- per month. It was further proved that the appellant was an efficient Mechanic and had a good chance to climb up the ladder and reach a responsible position in his organization. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 and after deducting 1/3 of the gross salary on account of person­nel expenses worked out the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased as 11,47,000/-. The Tribunal, awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 2 widow of the deceased Rs. 40,000/-(10,000/- each) on account of loss of love, affection and guidance to the minor children of the deceased, amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of estate and further an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses. The Tribunal in all awarded an amount of Rs. 12,62,000/- to the respondents 1 to 6 with interest at @ 6% per annum. 17. It is pertinent to point out that Sec­tion 168 Motor Vehicles Act saddles Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with the duty to assess just compensation. The duty cast on the Tribunal is independent of the pleadings and not necessarily restricted by the percep­tions of the claimants reflected in the claim petition. It is well settled law that rigor of rules of pleadings and proof is not attracted with same force in case of claims under Motor Vehicles Act as it applies to other civil proceedings. Reference in this regard may be made in law laid down in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh in AIR 2003 SC 674 . The duty lies primarily on the Tribunal to assess the just compensation and to accomplish the task, the Tribunal is given freedom to rely upon the hypothetical considerations. If the Tribunal is held to be saddled with the duty to assess and evaluate just compensation, same is true about the 1st Appellate Court. The duty lies primarily on the Tribunal to assess the just compensation and to accomplish the task, the Tribunal is given freedom to rely upon the hypothetical considerations. If the Tribunal is held to be saddled with the duty to assess and evaluate just compensation, same is true about the 1st Appellate Court. In other words if the Appellate Court while going through the award, no matter whether questioned by the Insurer or the insured, finds that the award is exorbitant or the Tribunal while making award has ignored an impor­tant aspect of the case that on consideration would have persuaded the Tribunal to en­hance the compensation, the appellate Court would not feel any handicap in taking cor­rective measures. The Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), while commenting on meaning of expression "just compensation" has observed. ".....Just compensation is adequate com­pensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by apply­ing the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. Assessment of compensation through involv­ing certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudica­tion, and fairness and uniformity in the deci­sion making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uni­formity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation." 18. In the present case, the Tribunal has applied Multiplier of 13 while computing the loss of income suffered by respondents 1 to 6 because of death of their only bread earner. The view taken by the Tribunal is in strict conformity with law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra). The multiplier to be applied in the age group of 46 to 50, in terms of judgment, is 13 to be reduced by two units for every five years. In the said background there is no reason to interfere with the multi­plier applied by the Tribunal. 19. The multiplier to be applied in the age group of 46 to 50, in terms of judgment, is 13 to be reduced by two units for every five years. In the said background there is no reason to interfere with the multi­plier applied by the Tribunal. 19. The Tribunal while assessing the loss of income has not taken into account the fu­ture prospects of the deceased. The deceased had a permanent job and was 49 years of age. Having regard to law laid down in Sarla Verma's case, the Tribunal ought to have added 30% of "actual salary" i.e. salary less by income-tax, to the salary drawn by the deceased on the date of accident. The "ac­tual salary" of the deceased was thus to be taken as Rs. 11023 x 30/100 = 14330/- and the loss of income computed accordingly. 20. The deceased left behind 6 (six) de­pendents including his widowed mother, four minor children and the widow. The Tribunal having regard to the number of dependents and the fact that none of the dependents had any independent source of income, ought to have deducted only 1/5th of the "actual sal­ary" on account of personnel expenses. It needs no emphasis that a person with six dependents without any independent source of their income, can ill-afford to spend 1/3rd of his income on his personnel expenses. While a bachelor having his parents as his dependents may be taken to spend half of his income on his personnel expenses, same may not be true in case of a person having four children, wife and widowed mother as dependents. When 1/5th of the actual monthly salary is deducted on account of personnel expenses, the total income loss to the family because of death of its sole bread earner, works out to be Rs. 11464 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 17,88,384/-. 21. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal as "general damages", however, is either on higher side or not permissible un­der law. The loss of income to the depen­dents of the deceased because of death in­cludes within its fold, the damages almost on all counts except the loss of consortium to the widow, loss of estate and actual ex­penses like medical expenses, and funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of the deceased on account of loss of consortium. The amount awarded is on higher side. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of the deceased on account of loss of consortium. The amount awarded is on higher side. The compensation suggested by second schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, on account of loss of consortium is Rs. 5000/-. The Tribunal with­out assigning reasons has awarded compen­sation four times the suggested compensa­tion. The Tribunal as against suggested com­pensation on account of loss of estate awarded twenty times the suggested amount and compensation on account of funeral ex­penses two and a half times of the suggested compensation. The just compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, having regard to all the aspects of the case would be Rs. 10,000/-, 5000/- and Rs. 5000/-. There was no-reason for the Tribunal to award compensation on account of loss of love, supervision, etc. in favour of respondents 3 to 6 as such loss is covered under loss of income or dependence. The Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on said count, thus, must be disallowed. 22. In the said background the award questioned in CIMA 193/2009 is required to be modified so as to bring it in conformity under law on the subject and CIMA 193/2009 to be disposed of accordingly. 23. In CIMA No. 194/2009, already pointed out the award made by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent is questioned on the additional ground that the respondent having failed to prove that she suffered any permanent disablement due to the vehicular accident in question, it was not open to the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/-on account of permanent disablement. The Tribunal is said to have also erred, while awarding an amount to Rs. 60,000/- on ac­count of expenses incurred in engaging of domestic help and on medical treatment. The respondent examined Dr. Khursheed Alam HOD, Surgery SKIMS, Soura to substanti­ate that the respondent was seriously injured in the vehicular accident in question and her spleen ruptured due to the impact of the ac­cident, was ultimately removed at the SKIMS, Source. Dr. Khursheed Alam has given details of the injuries suffered by re­spondent in the vehicular accident and claimed to have removed the respondent's spleen after it was found that there is no hope to preserve it. Dr. Khursheed Alam has given details of the injuries suffered by re­spondent in the vehicular accident and claimed to have removed the respondent's spleen after it was found that there is no hope to preserve it. The witnesses further stated that the respondent remained admitted in SKIMS, Soura from 6th June, 2005 till 30th June, 2005. The Doctor has testified that spleen being a vital organ of the body, its removal makes the patient prone to infection, making it necessary for the patient to take extraordinary caution and be extra careful, his/her whole life. The case set up by the re­spondent was also supported by P.W. Mukhtar Hussain and Javed Ahmad exam­ined by the respondent in support of her case. The respondent in her statement gave details of the expenses she had incurred on employ­ing a domestic help for two months to look after her and her children and the expenses incurred on account of medical treatment. 24. The appellant did not adduce any evidence at all to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondent. The Tribunal thus rightly held the respondent to have proved her case and the respondent to be entitled to get com­pensation on account of medical treatment, wages of the domestic help and disablement. There is no merit in the plea that the respon­dent did not prove disablement and was not entitled to compensation on said count. The respondent had a vital organ of her body re­moved due to the accident and as stated by respondent witness Dr. Khursheed Alam, HOD Surgery, SKIMS, Soura was prone to infection and was to be extra careful for her whole life. In the said background the respondent cannot be said to have not suffered and proved disablement due to the vehicular ac­cident in question. The award made by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent thus does not call for any interference, as no ground is made out as would persuade the Court to over-set the award. 25. For the reasons discussed CIMA 193/2009 is disposed of with a direction to the Appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 17,88,384/- together with Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 5000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses (total Rs. 18,08,384/-) to the respondents 1 to 6. The award in claim petition 200/2005 is modi­fied accordingly. 17,88,384/- together with Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 5000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses (total Rs. 18,08,384/-) to the respondents 1 to 6. The award in claim petition 200/2005 is modi­fied accordingly. The order as regards ap­portionment of compensation amongst the respondents is left unaltered. The appellant Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its fi­nal realization. 26. CIMA 194/2009 is dismissed. 27. Record be sent down. Order accordingly.