JUDGMENT The Appellant Insurance Com­pany is aggrieved of the order dated 28.10.2011 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, whereby the Tribunal has assessed an amount of Rs. 4,98,000/- as "just Compensa­tion" within the meaning of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act and accord­ingly made the award in favour of legal representatives of Mst. Zaiba victim of the tragic vehicular accident that took place at Banakoot Bandipora on 02.03.2009. 2. Facts are not in dispute. It is admitted case of the parties that Zaiba wife of Mohd Abdullah Hajam R/p Bonakoot Tehsil Bandipora District Bandipora was run over by a speeding vehicle, insured with the appellant In­surance Company, at Bonakoot Bandipora. The victim left behind her husband Mohammad Abdullah Hajam and two sons Irshad Ahmad Hajam and Nazir Ahmad Hajam respondents in the present appeal. 3. The award is questioned on the grounds that writ Court erroneously applied multiplier of 13 while assess­ing the compensation payable to the respondents. It is insisted that the Tri­bunal having regard to the Injury memo and post morten report appended to the chargesheet filed by the Police Station concerned against the driver of the of­fending vehicle ought to have applied multiplier of 8 instead of 13 and work out the compensation accordingly. 4. The next ground urged in the appeal is that the driver of the offend­ing vehicle admittedly was having an invalid driving licence at the time of accident and that the appellant Insur­ance Company in view of breach of in­surance contract was free from the li­ability under the insurance contract. 5. Perusal of the pleadings, the Tri­bunal record and the impugned award reveals that the appellant Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to reinforce its stand in opposition to the claim petition and to rebut the evi­dence adduced by the respondents. There was overwhelming evidence on the file to support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the deceased at the time of unfortunate accident was 45 years of age. The appellant disap­points the conclusion drawn on the ground that the age of the deceased as per Injury memo and post mortem re­port was 60 years and not 45 years as stated before the Tribunal. The appellant disap­points the conclusion drawn on the ground that the age of the deceased as per Injury memo and post mortem re­port was 60 years and not 45 years as stated before the Tribunal. The Tribu­nal found that husband of the deceased is in the age group of 46 to 50 years accordingly and believed the evidence adduced by the respondents to prove that the deceased at the time of acci­dent was 45 years of age was substan­tiated by the attending circumstaces. The appellant on the other hand did not adduce any evidence to prove that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of accident and rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents. The appel­lant if nursing any doubt about verac­ity of the evidence adduced by the re­spondent ought to have examined the author of the injury memo and post mortem report now pressed into service by it, to persuade the Tribunal to con­clude that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of accident. The ap­pellant after having wasted an oppor­tunity given by the Tribunal to adduce evidence in support of the issues bur­dened whereof was placed on it and to rebut the evidence adduced by the re­spondents to discharge their burden cannot be allowed to draw support from the report neither proved, nor part of the evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusions drawn in the circum­stances are not open to question. 6. As regards the averment that licence of the driver of the offending ve­hicle was invalid and the appellant was absolved of the liability under the in­surance contract to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, can be addressed by giving the appellant right to recover the compensation paid from the owner of the offending vehicle as laid down in Ishwar Chandra and Ors Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., and the practice that has found approval of the superior courts including the Apex Court. 7. So viewed, while assessing as regards quantum of the compensation the appellant is given liberty to recover the compensation amount paid to the respondents from the owner of the of­fending vehicle. 8. The deposit amount be released in favour of the respondents through account payees cheque after proper verification. 9. Disposed of.