C.R. Sarma, J.— The above mentioned, appeal have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 15.10.2001, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartata, in Title Suit (MAC) No. 94/1998, preferred by claimant Smti Ahallya Bala Das. As both appeals involve the same facts and similar question of law, as agreed to by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, the appeals aforesaid have been heard together and propose to dispose of the appeals with this common judgment and order. 2. Shri Surjya Mohan Das (since deceased) son of the claimant-appellant Smti Ahallya Bala, Das, died on 2.2.1992 at Manughat Bazar at Assam Agartala Road in a vehicular accident, involving a truck, bearing registration No. TRL 3438 (Truck). Accordingly police registered a case being Monu P. S. Case No. 1(2)71992 under Section 279/338/304-A IPC. 3. The said mother of the deceased aforesaid, as claimant, filed a claim case, claiming compensation of Rs. 8,30,000/-. According to the claimant, the monthly income of her son; who was a bachelor was Rs 1,500/- and he was 30 years old at the time of accident. 4. The appellant, in C.O. (FA) No.7 72002, is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent National Insurance Company was the insurer of the said vehicle. Though the owner did not contest the claim, the insurer i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim, by filing a written statement as well as an additional written statement. The plea of the insurer was that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake one and as such the vehicle, being allowed to be driven by a driver without having genuine licence, the insurer had no liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The insurer further contended that the claim was made in collusion with the owner of the vehicle and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim. 5. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for determination. (1) Whether Surjya Mohan Das was injured in a motor accident on 2.2.1992 at about 0700 hours at Monughat Bazar on Assam Agartala Road? (2) Whether said accident occurred c to rash and negligent driving of the driv of the vehicle TRL 3438 (Truck}? (3) Whether claimant petitioner; entitled to get compensation? (1) Whether Surjya Mohan Das was injured in a motor accident on 2.2.1992 at about 0700 hours at Monughat Bazar on Assam Agartala Road? (2) Whether said accident occurred c to rash and negligent driving of the driv of the vehicle TRL 3438 (Truck}? (3) Whether claimant petitioner; entitled to get compensation? If so,' should be the just compensation? (4) Who is liable to pay compensatio if awarded? 6. The claimant examined herself as PW-11, and another witness namely, Jitendra Das, as PW-2. The claimant also proved the certified copy of the FIR, the charge-sheet, the post-mortem report in connection with Manu P.S. Case No. 1 (2)71992. The insurer examined one witness, namely, Nishit Ranjan Bhattacharjee, an Assistant Manager of the Company as the D W -1 and exhibited a letter issued by District Transport Officer, North Tripura 7. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and considering the evidence, on record, the learned trial Judge came to the findings that the son of the appellant died in a vehicular accident involving the vehicle, insured by the said insurer and that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500/- p.m. Deducting Rs. 700/- toward the personal expenditure of the deceased, the learned Judge calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 1,72,800/-(96000 x 18), applying the multiplier 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased, who was 30 years old. On account of uncertainty of life and considering that the deceased was an unmarried person, the learned trial Judge further deducted 1/3rd from the said amount and thus granted an award of Rs. 1,15,200/-as loss of income due to death of the deceased. Another amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded as funeral expenses. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,17,200/- has been awarded as compensation with interest, thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum payable from the date of filing the application till realization. It was further provided that in the event of failure topay the awarded amount within 60 days from the date of award, the awarded amount will carry interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum. 8. The learned trial Judge also held that as the owner did not participate in the trial and the vehicle was driven by a person not having a valid licence the insurer had no liability to pay the award. 12% per annum. 8. The learned trial Judge also held that as the owner did not participate in the trial and the vehicle was driven by a person not having a valid licence the insurer had no liability to pay the award. Accordingly, the liability was fixed with the owner. 9. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award, the claimant, as appellant, has come up with MAC Appeal No. 06/2002, contending that the learned trial Judge committed error by making deductions twice in respect of the income of the deceased and allowing the insurer to contest the claim, without any permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act. 10. In view of fixation of the liability, to pay the award, with the owner of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, as appellant, has come up with C.O. (FA) 07/2002, on the ground that the learned trial Judge committed error by fixing the liability with the owner although the driver, allowed by the owner to drive the vehicle, had a licence. 11. Mr. S. K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that in view of the deduction of 50% of the monthly income of the deceased, on account of his personal expenditure, the subsequent deduction of 1/3 amount from the total annual income was not lawful and that the learned trial Court committed gross error by making deduction twice, hi support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the decision of (1)Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. & Anr. ( 2008 ACJ 1357 ), (2) Leela Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010-ACJ 2717) 12. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the owner- appellant in CO (FA) No. 07/2012 has submitted that from the evidence of the defence witness and Ext.-A, it has been established that on the date of the accident the driver had a licence, bearing No. 3573/KLS. Therefore, by engaging a driver, having licence, to drive the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle did not flout terms and conditions of the Insurance and as such the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner. It is submitted that it is not a case no driving licence, but a case of fake driving licence. Therefore, by engaging a driver, having licence, to drive the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle did not flout terms and conditions of the Insurance and as such the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner. It is submitted that it is not a case no driving licence, but a case of fake driving licence. It is also submitted that no leave was granted to the insurer under Section 170 of the M.V. Act and as such the insurer can not contest the award granted by the tribunal. The learned counsei has relied on the decision held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geet Bhat & Ors., reported in 2008 ACJ 1498 (AIR 2008 SCI 837). 13. In reply to the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants aforesaid, Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has submitted that, as the deceased was a bachelor, the learned trial Court, committed no error by deducting 50% from his monthly income as his personal expenditure. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error, in law, by selecting the appropriate multiplier, taking the age of the deceased, who died unmarried, in stead of taking the age of the claimant, whose age was higher. He further contended that the owner of the vehicle failed to contest the claim and produce the driving licence of the driver and that the investigation, conducted by the insurer, revealed that no driving licence, as claimed in this case, was issued in favour of the driver and as such the owner, who allowed the driver, to drive the vehicle, without any valid licence was liable to pay the award and as such in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the learned trial Judge committed no error by fixing the liability with the insurer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel, appearing for the insurer has relied on the decision held in the case of (1) Sarla Verma (Smti) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr, reported in 2009 ACJ1298 [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], (2) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra &. Ors, reported in 1996ACJ831 [ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ], (3) Ramesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Satbir Singh & Anr., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1238 and(4) General Manager, Kerela SRTC Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr, reported in 2009 ACJ1298 [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], (2) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra &. Ors, reported in 1996ACJ831 [ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ], (3) Ramesh Singh & Anr. Vs. Satbir Singh & Anr., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1238 and(4) General Manager, Kerela SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 (1994 ACJ 1). 14. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is found that the learned trial Judqe, after deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards, his personal expenses, again deducted 1/3rd from the total income on account of uncertainty. The learned trial Judge observed: "For total uncertainty of life and also for the reason that the deceased was an unmarried young man and that in the event of his marriage the contribution for the petitioner would naturally decrease. So, on all those counts let us exclude one-third from the aforesaid amount and the amount stands at Rs. 1,15,200/-." Fact remains that the learned trial Judge had already deducted 50% from the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, there is no dispute that the learned trial Judge made double deduction in respect of the income of the deceased. In the case or Bilkis (supra), the deceased, who was a bachelor died leaving his parents. The tribunal, while granting compensation deducted 50°/0 of the total income towards his personal living expenditure. The income of the deceased was Rs. 31,494/- from his business, and the contribution to his family/dependency was worked out at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The High Court affirmed the said award. The claimant/appellant carried the appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the deduction of 50%. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the deceased, who was a bachelor could not spend 50% of his income on himself, but ¾ of the income was contributed to the family. The Supreme Court, while enhancing the award held that the incumbent being a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 173rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would have certainly gone towards the family kitty. The Supreme Court, while enhancing the award held that the incumbent being a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 173rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would have certainly gone towards the family kitty. In the above referred case, the deceased left his parents, but in the present case, as revealed from the claim petition as well as the evidence of the PW-1, the claimant is the only dependant. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case, in my respectful opinion, will not apply in our present case: In the case of Leela Gupta (supra), Ganga Prasad Gupta, the deceased husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, died in a vehicular accident leaving his wife and 3 children. He was aged 39 years and was officiating as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department. His gross salary was Rs. 2,680/- per month. The Tribunal held that the deceased would have contributed Rs. 2,200.00 per month (Rs. 26,400/-per year) to the family and by applying multiplier 18 calculated the pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,75,200.00. The Tribunal after computing the pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,75,200 deducted 1/3 of the said amount on account of payment in lump sum amount and uncertainty in life and by further deducting Rs. 40,000/- towards group insurance scheme fixed the compensation at Rs. 27,68,000.00. On appeal, High Court held that the total income should be Rs. 6,91,200/- and that the claimants were entitled to get Rs. 4,70,000/- as compensation with 9% simple interest. The High Court while, computing the said amount reduced 1/3 from the total amount of Rs. 6,9,200/- on account of imponderability and uncertainty of life. On appeal, the Supreme Court, referring to the decisions held in the case of (1) Sarla Verma (supra), Susamma Thomes (supra) and a catena of decisions, while allowing the appeal, held that the High Court was in error in reducing V3 after ascertainment of multiplicand. The Supreme Court made it clear that once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained, assessment of damage to compensate the dependents is arrived at by multiplying the two and no further deduction needs to be made for uncertainties and other contingencies. The Supreme Court made it clear that once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained, assessment of damage to compensate the dependents is arrived at by multiplying the two and no further deduction needs to be made for uncertainties and other contingencies. The Supreme Court held that the very method of ascertainment of the multiplicand takes into consideration many factors of imponderables and the contingencies of the future. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smti) and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the principle of deduction towards personal expenses, holding that it should be 1/3 of the of his income, if he was married and one half (50%) of the income, if he was unmarried. While lying down the said principles, the Supreme Court also held that the deduction would depend on the number of the dependents i.e. 1/3rd where the number of dependant family members are 2 to 3, 1/4th if the member is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of family members (dependents) exceeds 6 (six). 15. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, as the deceased left, the claimant i.e. his mother as the only dependant, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been 50% i.e. one half of the total income and once the said deduction is made by computing the loss of dependency, no further deduction can be allowed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge, after deducting 50% from the monthly income of the deceased and computing loss of dependency, after ascertaining the multiplicand and multiplier, eared in law, by further deducting 1/3rd from the total loss of dependency on account of uncertainty etc. This second deduction cannot be maintained. 16. Mr. A. L. Saha, learned counsel, appearing for the insurer has submitted that as there was none, except the claimant, as dependent of the deceased, the multiplier should have been adopted on the basis of the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that the age of the claimant being higher than the deceased, the learned trial Judge committed error by taking the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. 17. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Court considered the case of Trilok Chandra (supra). In Trilok Chandra the decision of Susamma Thomas (supra) was referred. 17. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Court considered the case of Trilok Chandra (supra). In Trilok Chandra the decision of Susamma Thomas (supra) was referred. In Susamme Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants which is higher). In Trilok Chandra, the Supreme Court referred to the following observation made in Susamma Thomas (supra): "12. For concluding the analysis it is necessary to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of GM. Kerala SRTC V. Susamma Thomas. In that case this Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above and reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Court observed: (SCC P. 183 para 13). "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." 18. In Ramesh Singh (supra), the Supreme Court referring to the decision held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Charlie [ (2005) 10 SCC 720 )] observed that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. 19. In Sarla Verma (supra) also, the Supreme Court held that the selection of multiplier cannot, in all cases, solely depend on the age of the deceased. 20. In view of the above decision it is clear that the multiplier should be selected on the basis of the age of either the deceased or the claimants, whose age is higher. Therefore, there is no difficulty in understanding that if the age of the claimant or legal representatives is higher than the deceased, then the age of the claimant should be the basis for determining the multiplier. Therefore, there is no difficulty in understanding that if the age of the claimant or legal representatives is higher than the deceased, then the age of the claimant should be the basis for determining the multiplier. On the other hand, if the age of the deceased is higher then the age of the deceased should be selected for determining the multiplier. 21. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident i.e. on 2.2.1992 and the age of the claimant (i.e. the mother of the deceased) was 55160 years on the date of giving evidence as PW-1 on 16.6.2001. This indicates that her age, on the date of accident, was 46/51 years. Therefore, her age being higher, the multiplier should have been selected on the basis of her age and not on the basis of the age of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Judge committed error for selecting multiplier 18, on the basis of the age of the deceased. 22. In view of the above decision, as the claimant stated that her age was 55/60 years, on 2.2.1992, for giving her some benefit; we may take the lower side of her age. Therefore, her age on the date of accident was about 46 years. As per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarma Verma (supra), the multiplier for the aqe group of 46-50 years would be 13. Therefore, the correct multiplier would be 13. 23. As the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1500/- his annual income stood at Rs. 18,000/-. After deducting 50% from the said amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9000/-. Using the multiplier 13 the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 117000.00 (9000x13). There is no dispute regarding award of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. As she has lost her young son, in my considered opinion, she would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of love and affection. Therefore, the total amount shall stand at Rs. 127,000/-. 24. In the cross appeal the owner of the vehicle has submitted that as the vehicle was driven by a person having a license the learned trial Judge committed error by fixing the liability with the insurer. From the evidence of DW1 and Ext. 10,000/- as loss of love and affection. Therefore, the total amount shall stand at Rs. 127,000/-. 24. In the cross appeal the owner of the vehicle has submitted that as the vehicle was driven by a person having a license the learned trial Judge committed error by fixing the liability with the insurer. From the evidence of DW1 and Ext. A i.e. the certificate issued by the District Transport Officer it is found that the driving licence 3573/KLS, which stood in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle was not a genuine one. Therefore, this was not a case of no driving licence, but a case of forged or invalid driving license. The owner of the vehicle, who engaged the driver, cannot be expected to make a detailed enquiry to ascertain the correctness or genuineness of the licence, shown to him. His duty in engaging the driver ends if the driver is found to have a licence. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Sing, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 Para 110 (2004) ACJ1), the Hon'ble Suprme Court observed, that in the event of accident of a person having driving licence, the tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the basis of the driving licence and the Insurance Company cannot shrink the liability by saying that the driving licence was not valid or fake. 25. In the Geeta Bhat (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "13. We would, therefore, assume that the driving licence possessed by the Gopal Singh, respondent No.6, was a fake one. Only because the same was fake, the same, having regard to the settled legal position, as noticed hereinbefore, would not absolve the insurer to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of the amount awarded in favour of the third party by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988." With the above observation, the Supreme Court while directing the insurer to pay the awarded amount granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 26. In the case at hand also the driver had a licence. Police also seized the driving licence form the driver in connection with GR. Case No. 45/92 under Sections 279/338 IPC, which case relates to this accident. 26. In the case at hand also the driver had a licence. Police also seized the driving licence form the driver in connection with GR. Case No. 45/92 under Sections 279/338 IPC, which case relates to this accident. The plea of the insurer is that the same was a fake one, in as much as the concerned authority (the District Transport Officer, Kailashar) by issuing the Ext. No. "A" informed that the said licence was not issued from the said office. Therefore, it was a case of fake driving licence. As observed by the Supreme Court, in the case of Geeta Bhatt (supra), the insurer is required to establish willful breach on the part of the insured. There is nothing, on record to show that the owner had allowed the driver to drive the vehicle with the knowledge that the licence was a fake one. 27. In view of the said decisions and the facts and circumstance of this case, I am inclined to hold that the insurer has the initial liability to pay the award in favour of the claimant. However, the insurer, may recover the same from the owner, in appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law. 28. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned award is liable to be interfered and modified. 29. Accordingly, it is directed that the claimant will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- as compensation and the same shall be paid by the insurer. Liberty is granted to the insurer to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle, if so advised, in appropriate proceeding, as per law. The amount, if any, already paid shall be deducted from the said awarded amount. As directed by the learned Trial Judge the awarded amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition i.e. on 17.4.1998 till realization. With the above directions and modifications, the appeals are allowed. No costs. _____________