ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 18.12.2009 passed by Addl. Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonkatch, Distt. Dewas in claim case No. 17/08, whereby the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.11.09 Jyoti along with her friends were going to Sonkatch school, when they reached at Village Pilwani in front of the house of Jaiswal, at that time, truck bearing No. MP09-HF-3629 which was driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, hit them due to which Jyoti and her friend Reena sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Matter was reported at Police Station, Sonkatch. At the time of accident deceased Jyoti was prosecuting her studies at Sonkatch school. The appellants who are father and mother of the deceased had filed a claim petition under section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 11.30,000/-. The offending vehicles was insured with the respondent No.3 insurance company. The respondents No. 1 and 2, driver and owner were proceeded ex parte and they have not filed any written statement reply before the claims tribunal. The respondent No.3 insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averment made in the claim petition. In para 28 of the written statement it is averred that respondent No. 1 driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle bearing No. MP09-H.F. 3629. (Exhibit D/1) is driving licence verification report dated 16.10.08. As per this report the insurance company has verified the licence of driver from Road Transport Authority, Varanasi and as per Form No. 54 (Exhibit D/2) issued by RTO, Authority, Varanasi, DL. No. S-21475 Varanasi /87 dated 25.1.1987 the said licence was take and fabricated. Driving licence verification report (Exhibit D/1) was issued by S.K. Singh investigator of the insurance company. Exhibit D/2 is the form 54 issued by licensing authority Motor Vehicles Department, Varanasi, Lalit Bandi (NAW-1) Assistant Manager of respondent No.3 insurance company in para 2 of his cross examination has deposed that he had no knowledge about the person who had issued Exhibit D/2. Exhibit D/2 is the form 54 issued by licensing authority Motor Vehicles Department, Varanasi, Lalit Bandi (NAW-1) Assistant Manager of respondent No.3 insurance company in para 2 of his cross examination has deposed that he had no knowledge about the person who had issued Exhibit D/2. This witness in para 2 of his statement very specifically admitted that Exhibit D/2 does not bear the seal and signature of licensing authority. 3. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Additional Member of Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 18.12.2009 and came to the conclusion that the insurance company did not examine any witness nor produce any document which could prove that driver had no valid licence. It also held that the insurance company had never issued any notice to the owner or driver of the offending vehicle or made any effort for production of the licence of the driver respondent No.1. Therefore, the burden had not been discharged by the insurance company that concerned bus driver was not having licence at the time of accident and held that respondent No.3, cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation amount to the appellants and claims on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence or his licence was fake and directed the insurance company, owner and driver of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of death deceased Jyoti was prosecuting her studies at Sonkatch school and at that relevant time she was in 9th standard and was brilliant student. The learned tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the appellants. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent insurance company has submitted that in absence of any evidence that at the time of accident deceased was in 9th standard and prosecuting her studies at Sonkatch school the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement of compensation as prayed by the appellants is made out and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. 6. In respect of the liability of the insurance company it is submitted that insurance company has verified the licence of the driver and submitted the report vide Exhibit D/1 and Exhibit D/2 is (Form No. 54), issued by the Road Transport Authority, Varanasi, the learned tribunal erred in law in not considering the fact that Exhibit D/2 bear the seal and signature of the RTO Authority which shows that respondent No. 1 does not possess valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is further submitted that at the time of accident respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence and he was driving the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, respondent No.3 cannot be held liable to indemnify the loss caused in the said accident under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that the cross objection filed by the insurance company be allowed and respondent No.3 insurance company be exonerated from the liability in respect of payment of compensation to the appellants. 7. The tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred in view of the rash and negligence driving of the respondent No.1 and it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of accident deceased Jyoti was in class 9th and prosecuting her studies at Sonkatch School. She was a very bright student. At the time of accident deceased was 15 years of age, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. He also drew my attention to the decision of the apex Court in the case of R.K. Malik & Anr. v. Kiran Pal & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2506 wherein the amount of Rs. 3,22,000/- has been awarded to the dependents of children between age group of 15 to 18 years. 9. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3086, wherein the accident took place on 3.3.1989, the multiplier method was referred to and adopted with approval. In cases of children between 5 to 10 years of age, compensation of Rs. 9. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3086, wherein the accident took place on 3.3.1989, the multiplier method was referred to and adopted with approval. In cases of children between 5 to 10 years of age, compensation of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs was awarded towards pecuniary compensation and in addition a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded towards 'conventional compensation'. In the case of children between 10 to 18 years compensation of Rs. 4.10 lakhs was awarded including "conventional compensation". While doing so the Supreme Court held that contribution of each child towards family should be taken as Rs. 24,000/- per annum instead of Rs. 12,000/- per annum as recommended by Justice Y. V. Chandrachud Committee. This was in view of the fact that the company in question had an un-written rule that every employee can get one of his children employed in the said company. 10. In the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151 , wherein 14 students of a public school got drowned in a river due to negligence of the teachers. On the question of quantum of compensation, Hon'ble Court accepted that the multiplier method was normally to be adopted as a method for assigning value of future annual dependency. It was emphasized that the Court must ensure that a just compensation was awarded. 11. In Grewal Case (supra), compensation of Rs. 5lakhs was awarded to the claimants and the same was held to be justified. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, however, pointed out that in the said case the Supreme Court had noticed that the students belonged to an affluent school as was apparent from the fee structure and therefore, the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as awarded by the High Court was not found to be excessive. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the said case noticed that the students belonged to an upper middle class background but the basis and the principle on which the compensation was awarded in that case would equally apply to the present case. 12. In the present case, records show that deceased was good in studies and studying in a good school. Naturally, her future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since she was child there was no yardstick to measure the loss of her future prospects. 12. In the present case, records show that deceased was good in studies and studying in a good school. Naturally, her future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since she was child there was no yardstick to measure the loss of her future prospects. Since she was performing well in studies, naturally consequence supposed to be a bright future. At the time of death deceased was 15 years of age as she was non-earning member, her income is assessed at the rate of 15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal and living expenses the amount of annual dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 10,000/ - per annum and, therefore, multiplier of 17 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 17 (10,000 x 17) the loss of dependency compensation would come to Rs. 1,70,000/-. The appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 2000/ - funeral expenses and Rs. 15000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and R.K. Malik & Anr. (supra), I deem it appropriate to grant the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- on account of future prospects of the children to be paid to the appellants. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,70,000 + 18,000 + 75,000 = Rs. 2,63,000. After deducting Rs. 1.50 Lakh the amount awarded by the tribunal the amount of compensation is further enhanced to Rs. 1,13,000/- (2,63,000 - 1,50,000 = 1,13,000/-). This amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 7 1/2% per annum as awarded by the claims tribunal. 13. The insurance company pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of the condition of the policy that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. As the insurance company is claiming exoneration on the ground of breach of the condition of the policy, the burden is squarely on it to prove that breach has been committed by the insured and if breach was not proved by leading evidence, the insurance company would fail. As the insurance company is claiming exoneration on the ground of breach of the condition of the policy, the burden is squarely on it to prove that breach has been committed by the insured and if breach was not proved by leading evidence, the insurance company would fail. In this case the insurance company did not examine the investigator who had issued driving licence verification report nor produced any document which could prove that driver had no valid licence. The insurance company had never issued any notice to the owner or driver of the offending vehicle or made any effort for the production of the offending vehicle of the driver respondent No.1. Therefore, the burden has not been discharged by the insurance company that the concerned truck driver was not having valid, licence at the time of accident. 14. From the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Sharma and another v. Ram Murthi and Ors reported in 2004 ACJ 1697 , wherein the apex Court has held that in the case that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they proved that the owner was aware or noticed that the licence was fake and still permitting to drive. Para 6 is relevant which reads as under: "The Court below has, thus rightly concluded that Satyadev was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Now most important question is whether the driver has any valid licence or not? The burden of proving the fact that the driver was driving the vehicle without valid licence on the insurance company as has been laid down by the apex Court in large number of cases like Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 1989 ACJ 1078 (SC) and Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC). In view of the aforesaid judgments it is clear that it is for insurance company to plead and prove that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident. In para 11 of the written statement the insurance company has made plea to that effect. For proving the said plea insurance company has examined one Satish Bansal as witness No.1 for NA 3. In para 11 of the written statement the insurance company has made plea to that effect. For proving the said plea insurance company has examined one Satish Bansal as witness No.1 for NA 3. The said witness has not uttered a single word about the licence." 15. Learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Akhilesh Gupta v. Arvind Kumar reported in 2007 ACJ 2477 wherein the insurance company had never issued any notice to the owner to driver of the bus or made any efforts for the production of the driving licence of the driver, respondent No.2. Therefore, the burden had not been discharged by the insurance company that concerned bus driver was not having valid licence at the time of accident and held that the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the tribunal has not committed any legal error in directing the insurance company to pay compensation on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence. 17. In the result, the appeal of appellants-claimants is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is further enhanced to Rs. 1,13,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum as stated in the preceding paragraph. The cross objection filed by the insurance company is dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.