Judgment Jaya Roy, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. From the record I find according to the order dated 4.9.2012, the appeal is fixed for final hearing with the consent of both the parties. 3. The opposite party/Insurance Co. has filed this appeal in this court against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2008 passed by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Bokaro in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 22 of 2001 whereby the tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents. 4. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The claimant's case is that the compensation case was originally filed by Ravan Manjhi (father of the deceased who died during pendency of the case) and his wife Muni Devi for awarding compensation on account of motor accidental death of their only son Sundarlal Soren, who was 29 years of age. It is to mention here that at the time of filing the claim case, the wife of the deceased namely Smt. Urmila Devi was made opposite party, as proforma opposite party no. 4 but during pendency of the case, Smt. Urmila Devi appeared and filed a petition for making her and her two minor daughters as applicant and as such Urmila Devi and her two minor daughters Suman Kumari and Nisha Kumari became applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The mother of the deceased namely Muni Devi was applicant no. 1. 5. Further case of the applicants in brief is that on 12.3.99 at about 9.30 A.M. Manoranjan Manjhi alongwith Ramkishun Rajwar, Virendra Sharma, Ranjeet Kumar, Ghanshyam Manjhi, Gangasagar Nonia, Sunderlal Soren (deceased), Bechan Manjhi, Sameshwar Singh was traveling on a Tata 407, being registration No. BR-17P-6616, from Digadih No. 12 Dinobali More to Village-Telo was going to perform Tilak ceremony of his daughter. It is alleged that at about 11.30 A.M., when the said vehicle reached at Hirak Road, near over-bridge, the driver of the said vehicle started to drive the vehicle in very rash and negligent manner, resulting which the vehicle overturned in the right side of the road, in which Manoranjan Singh one Gangasagar and Sundralal Soren (victim) sustained injuries and other persons also sustained injury. Thereupon, Manoranjan Manjhi with other injured persons were brought to Dugdha Colliery Hospital for treatment but on the way Gangasagar and Sundralal Soren died. Thereupon, Manoranjan Manjhi with other injured persons were brought to Dugdha Colliery Hospital for treatment but on the way Gangasagar and Sundralal Soren died. Sundralal Soren was an employee of BCCL being Staff No. 01333772 and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4496.00, excluding D.A. He was aged about 29 years. Deceased was only earning member of his family. He died leaving behind his parents and wife and two minor daughters. The applicants claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees eight lakhs) with interest from date of filing of the application. 6. The opposite party no.1 respondent no. 5 Mukesh Kumar Singh, the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and opposite party no.3 Seikh Akhtar/respondent no. 6 the driver of the said vehicle never appeared in the case in spite of proper 'service of notice on them, only opposite party no.2 appellant Oriental Insurance Co. appeared and filed written statement controverting the statements made in the claim petition challenging the maintainability of the case stating inter alia that claim is ,barred and the claim in defective for non-joinder of the party. It is stated that opposite party no. 3/respondent no. 6 Seikh Akhtar has been charge-sheeted in G.R. Case No. 177/99 (the case which was filed in respect of the accident) as Driver of Tata 407 bearing registration No. BR-17P-6616. It is also denied that the deceased was BCCL employee and was getting monthly pay of Rs.4496.00. It is admitted that the vehicle No. BR-17P-6616 was insured with the company at the relevant time of the alleged accident. It is owner's duty to prove that the person was driving the said vehicle had valid bona fide driving license. It has been further stated that another suit which arises out the same accident filed by Kalawati Devi before the District Judge, Dhanbad T. (MY) Suit No. 63/99 in which the owner of the vehicle (opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 5) filed written statement, stating therein that he himself was driving the alleged vehicle. If the owner of the vehicle or driver failed to produce valid driving license, the liability of paying the compensation will shift to the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. In order to prove the case, the claimants has examined• altogether nine witnesses. If the owner of the vehicle or driver failed to produce valid driving license, the liability of paying the compensation will shift to the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. In order to prove the case, the claimants has examined• altogether nine witnesses. A.W. No.1 Urmila Devi being wife of the deceased, A.W. 2 Muni Devi the mother of the deceased, A.W. 3 Shankar Manjhi being an employee of BSL, A.W. 5 Sohan Manjhi, who has proved the F.I.R. relating to accidental death of Sundralal Soren which has been marked as Exhibits-3 & 3/1. A.W. 7 is Suman, minor daughter of the deceased aged about 6 years. She has stated that her mother solemnized second marriage after death of her father. She has stated that her mother told her to live with her grandmother as her grandmother will maintain them. She further said after the death of her father, her mother got service in the said department. A.W. 9 is Subhash Chandra Gorai. Besides the aforesaid oral' evidence, the fardbeyan of the case is marked as Exhibit-3, F.I.R. is Exhibit-3/1, Post Mortem Report is Exhibit-4, Registration No. in BCCL of Sundralal Soren is marked as X for identification, pay slip of Sundralal is Exhibit-5; certified copy of the charge-sheet is Exhibit-6 has been produced by the applicant. 8. In order to prove the case the Insurance Co. has examined one Sandeep Chatterjee as O.P.W. 1, an employee of Oriental Insurance Co. at Bokaro through his affidavit in which he has stated that alleged offending vehicle being Registration No. BR-17P 6616 was insured by his company for the period 28.12.98 to 27.12.99. It is further being stated the Insurance company called upon the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the photocopy of the driving license of driver which is relevant document of the said vehicle but the owner and driver did not produce the same. It is further being stated the Insurance company called upon the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the photocopy of the driving license of driver which is relevant document of the said vehicle but the owner and driver did not produce the same. It is further stated that one of the claimants of the deceased namely Ganga-sagar Nonia of the said accident, has filed a claim case before Dhanbad Court, in which driver of the vehicle did not appear where as the owner of the said vehicle appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that on the relevant day, time and place of occurrence, he was driving the said vehicle, where as the police submitted charge-sheet against one Seikh Akhtar the driver of the said vehicle. It is contended that as the said driver had no driving license, therefore to escape from paying compensation, the owner of the vehicle adduced false evidence before the said court. The certified copy of the W.S. Filed by the Mukesh Kumar Singh owner of the vehicle in T (M.V.) Suit No. 63/99 before District Judge, Dhanbad has been marked as Exhibit-'A'. The registered letter dated 15.2.05 signed by the Divisional Manager sent to owner of the vehicle being Registration No. BR17P-6616 is Exhibit-'B', carbon copy of registered letter sent to the owner regarding vehicle is marked as Exhibit-B/1, envelope is Exhibit-C, certified copy of Insurance policy is Exhibit-C1. 9. After hearing the counsel of the claimant and Insurance Co. and on the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has come to the finding that Sundralal Soren has died in the said vehicular accident due to rash• and negligent driving by the driver at the offending vehicle. At para 22 of the judgment, the tribunal has come to a finding that Insurance Co. has failed to prove the fact that owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. 10. Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Co. has submitted that the aforesaid finding given by the tribunal at para 22 of the judgment that Insurance Co. has failed to prove the fact that owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and condition of Insurance Policy is absolutely wrong. According to him when the Insurance Co. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Co. has submitted that the aforesaid finding given by the tribunal at para 22 of the judgment that Insurance Co. has failed to prove the fact that owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and condition of Insurance Policy is absolutely wrong. According to him when the Insurance Co. has given notice to the owner of the vehicle to produce the driving license of the driver and he has failed to produce the driving license in the court, adverse inference should be drawn against the owner and it will be deemed that the driver had no valid license on the date of accident. According to him when the Insurance Company in his written statement denies that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license on the day of the accident, it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license on the date of accident. In support of his contention he has placed before me two reported judgments of this Hon'ble Court Tripurari Mandal vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & Another reported in 2009(1) J.C.R. Page 335 (Jhr.) [ 2009(1) JLJR 319 ] and Sanjay Kumar Sarof @ Sanjay Kumar Sharof VS. Jitbahan Mahto & Others, reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. Page 336 (Jhr.) [ 2007(3) JLJR 680 ]. In both the reported cases, the tribunal came to a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was having no valid driving license to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident accordingly the liability was fastened upon the appellant-owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation. In the case at hand, the tribunal has not come to a finding that owner of vehicle has to pay the awarded amount as the driver had no valid driving license on the date of accident as such the principle laid down in the abovementioned two reported cases is of no help to the appellant. 11. Lastly, the learned counsel of the appellant co. 11. Lastly, the learned counsel of the appellant co. submitted that it has come in evidence that after death of Sundralal Soren, his wife' got a job in B.C.C.L. on compassionate ground as such she is not entitled to get such a high amount of compensation and to support his contention, the counsel cited before me the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakra Seas Management Board vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Others reported in A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court page 3118. But in the case at hand evidence has not come about the amount of 'Pay' of the deceased's wife Urmila Devi is getting now and no issue has been framed in this regard. Thus, the aforesaid case law is no help to the appellant. No interference can be made about the quantum of compensation given to Urmila Devi. The learned counsel placed before me the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment of Division Bench passed by this Court regarding another man Gangasagar Nonia who died in the same accident which traveled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. After remand, by judgment dated 21.4.2010 which was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MA No. 184 of 2002, The Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Kalawati Devi & Others, in which the 'Division Bench has directed the appellant company to pay the compensation amount but liberty is given if the appellant is able to prove in a proceeding that may be initiated by it that the vehicle was being driven by unlicenced driver and there had been breach of terms of the policy then they may get relief before appropriate forum in accordance with law. The photo-copy of the certified copy is kept in the record. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that tribunal after considering all the evidence on record has not come to a finding that driver of the offending vehicle had no effective driving license on the date of the accident as such the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is absolutely legal and valid. The counsel for the respondents further submits that it is the duty of the Insurance Co. to prove that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. The counsel for the respondents further submits that it is the duty of the Insurance Co. to prove that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. To support this contention they placed before me a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Kamala Mangalal Vayani and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. reported in (2010)12 Supreme Court Cases page 488. But I find the above noted judgment squarely covers the contention of the respondent. It is duty of the Insurance Company to prove that offending vehicle was driven by a person who had no valid driving license on the day of accident. On the other hand the learned tribunal at para 22 of the judgment has come to a finding that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and condition of the policy in question.' 13. Earlier Mr. Alok Lal has contended that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the vehicle in the criminal case register in this regard. But the submission of the charge-sheet is not the finality of the case. Furthermore, I perused the judgment dated 21.4.2010 passed in M.A. No. 184 of 2002 arises from the same accident. I find in the said judgment the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held:- "Mr. Alok Lal newly engaged counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the vehicle was being driven on the relevant date of accident by another persons named Sk. Akhtar. Curiously enough no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced in the claim case by the appellant Insurance Company to prove that the vehicle was not driven by the owner of the vehicle as admitted by him, but by another person named Sk. Akhtar." Therefore, at this stage in this case it cannot be said that the owner of the vehicle was not driving the said vehicle at the relevant time. 14. From the• impugned judgment and award the materials or records, I find that the case is maintainable, the vehicle was insured and Sundralal Soren died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. BR-17P-6616 and the victim was 30 to 32 years old and his monthly income was Rs.5,000/- at the relevant time. 14. From the• impugned judgment and award the materials or records, I find that the case is maintainable, the vehicle was insured and Sundralal Soren died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. BR-17P-6616 and the victim was 30 to 32 years old and his monthly income was Rs.5,000/- at the relevant time. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, it comes to Rs.40,000/per year. The deceased was 30 to 32 years old as such multiplier of 17 has been used by the Tribunal which comes to Rs.6,80,000/- as such claimants are entitled to Rs.6,80,000/- minus Rs.50,000/already paid by the Insurance co. to applicant/respondent no. 2 Urmila Devi. All four claimants are Hindu as such they are entitled to get Rs.1,70,000/- each. Respondent No.2 has received Rs.50,000/as such she will get Rs.1,20,000/-. The claimants are entitled to get total Rs.6,80,000/- + interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of this case in the year 2001, from the Oriental Insurance Co. Thus, the impugned judgment and award is very just and reasonable. 15. Admittedly the vehicle was insured with the appellant company. The accident took place about 13 years back but till date the claimants have not received the compensation amount. Accordingly the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest in the tribunal below within three months from the date of this order. 16. However, liberty is given to appellant company if the appellant is able to prove' in a proceeding that may be initiated by it that the vehicle was being driven by unlicensed driver and there had been breach of terms of the policy then they may get relief before appropriate forum in accordance with law as already given by the order 21.4.2010 passed in M.A. No. 184 of 2002 by the Division Bench of this Court. With the aforesaid directions the appeal is dismissed.