Judgment : The appellant-A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (1st respondent in the claim petition filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.785 of 2000, dated 27.01.2011, awarding compensation of Rs.5,94,125/- (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety four thousand one hundred and twenty five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum against the 1st respondent as against the claim of the claimants of Rs.8,01,000/-(Rupees Eight lakhs one thousand only) in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the appellant-1st respondent, Sri S.Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mohd.Yousuf learned counsel for the 5th respondent (mother of the deceased). Against the appeal 4th respondent notice served, but not appeared, thus taken up the appeal to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions of the insurer in the grounds of appeal as well as in course of hearing in nutshell are that the appellant-A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation (so called owner) contended that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case that the Tribunal erred gravely in ignoring the fact that despite Ex.B-1 policy was in force to cover the risk as on the date of accident i.e., 23.10.1999 and thereby award of the tribunal is unsustainable in not fixing the liability against the insurer to indemnify the insured and also that the quantum of compensation is exorbitant and excessive. Whereas, it is the contention of the insurer-4th respondent though served not appeared, but when Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for National Insurance Company Limited seeking permission to argue on behalf of the 4th respondent, this Court permitted contended that this Court while sitting in this appeal, there is nothing to interfere as the order the Tribunal is a reasoned one particularly on the quantum and in exonerating the insurer hence to dismiss the appeal. The claimants represented by Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy also submitted on the same lines so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. 4. The claimants represented by Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy also submitted on the same lines so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the driver of the crime lorry of the 1st respondent-owner admittedly insured with the 2nd respondent insurer, not possessed valid driving licence in force at the time of accident and to exonerate the insurer from liability by the Tribunal if not whether the award of the Tribunal as contended by the appellant requires interference by this Court on that ground apart from the quantum of compensation arrived by the Tribunal as excessive, if so what is the just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT No.1: 5. The factual matrix that were proved before the Tribunal is that on 23.10.1999 at 12.00 noon the deceased Mufeed (R.T.C driver, aged about 30 years) was proceeding on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 22-4565 on N.H-7 and when he reached near Janampet village the crime lorry bearing No.AP 9V 7322 of the 1st respondent came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, which resulted the deceased died on the spot, upon which a case was registered vide Ex.A-1 F.I.R. Then, the 1st claimant, wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are two minor children of the deceased filed claim petition, showing the mother of the deceased as 3rd respondent, claiming compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- showing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. The fact that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent driven by one T.Samson not in dispute. There is also no dispute on the factum of the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the said driver of the crime lorry to interfere so also on the factum of the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent, but for on the contention that there is any violation of policy by the insured in entrusting the crime vehicle to a person who is not having any valid and effective licence. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,94,125/- towards compensation to the claimants by exonerating the insurer with an observation that the driver was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident and held that the insurer is not liable, but for the 1st respondent-A.P. State civil Supplies Corporation (so called owner). 6. A perusal of Ex.X-2 as well as Ex.B-2, extract of certificate of proof by RTA in respect of driving licence of T.Samson, the driver is also discussed by the Tribunal from the evidence of R.Ws 2, 3 and 5 on behalf of the insurer that the driving licence was valid upto 24.10.1999 and it was renewed immediately with no lapse of time on 25.10.1999 which is valid for three years till mid night of 25.10.2002. When such is the case, as on the date and time of accident i.e., on 23.10.1999 at 12.00 noon, the driving licence was in force. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala ( AIR 2009 SC 208 ) by referring to Ishwar Chandra V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2007) 10 SCC 650 ) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai & Others ( (2006)4 SCC 250 ) held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner, when the driver has no licence to drive the crime vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. Suresh Chandra Agarwal (2009 SAR (civil) 679 (SC)) on same anology that by the time the accident took place, the driving licence of driver expired and later renewed, the Insurer cannot avoid liability of pay to the claimants and then to recover from owner. In this regard it is observed that there is also a grace period of 30 days from the date of expiry till date of renewal statutorily as per section 15(1) proviso (i) of the Act under which when an application for renewal of licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. Even Section 15(3) speaks where an application for renewal of a driving licence is made previous to or not more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed. Even Section 15(3) speaks where an application for renewal of a driving licence is made previous to or not more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed. By interpreting this provision, the Apex Court held that the renewal must be made within 30 days after the expiry to renew from date of expiry. Otherwise the renewal must be from the date of renewal only. Here, that difficulty also no way arises. In the practical matrix from the facts that it was renewed on 25.10.1999 and expired only on the mid night of 24.10.1999 of the accident occurred on the previous day 12.00 noon i.e., on 23.10.1999 to say for all practical purposes, the licence in force and on that account and also when the policy admittedly covers the risk as per R.W-2 as observed in para-9 of the judgment of the tribunal at page 3; the insurer cannot be exonerated from liability since liable to indemnify the claim petition 1st respondent-cum-appellant owner. Accordingly, this aspect of point No.1 is answered. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, that it is the contention that the quantum of compensation Rs.5,94,125/- awarded is excessive, it is not as if to say that not even just and low for the following reasons that the deceased as per Ex.A-5 post mortem examination report, aged 28 years and as per salary certificate 30 years and even taken the age of the deceased between 26 to 30, as per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) the multiplier is 17 and the earnings of the deceased is Rs.4,287.30 Ps is the net salary as per Ex.A-6 and if 50% prospective increase as per the expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh (2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC)) taken into consideration, it comes to Rs.6,430/- per month and if 1/3rd deducted towards personal expenses there from, it comes to Rs.4,287/- per month and Rs.51,444/- per annum. When the multiplier 17 is applied to the said income (51,444 x 17), it comes to Rs.8,74,548/-. When the multiplier 17 is applied to the said income (51,444 x 17), it comes to Rs.8,74,548/-. Apart from it, loss of consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st claimant, funereal expenses of Rs.25,000/-, loss of love, care and guidance for the two minor children even taken Rs.10,000/- each i.e., Rs.20,000/-, loss of estate Rs.5,000/-, it comes to Rs.10,24,548/-, which is more than what was awarded by the Tribunal and what was claimed. As no cross-objections filed by the claimants muchless any independent appeal, since there is a bar on the power of the Court even to exercise any power under Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C to enhance the quantum from what is laid down in Ranjan Prakash V. Divisional Manager (2011 (8) SCALE 240) that in the appeal filed by the driver or owner or insurer, in the absence of cross-objections by the claimants they have no right and Court also has no power to enhance the compensation, but for to support the quantum on one ground or the other. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT No.2: 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, while upholding the quantum of compensation, which no way requires interference by this Court including rate of interest; by holding that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured to satisfy the claim of the claimants. The amount, if any deposited by the insured is permitted to withdraw and take back, subject to the claim petition 2nd respondent-insurer to deposit the compensation amount within one month from today. The compensation amount if not deposited within two months from today, the claimants can recover the amount against the Insurer by way of execution on notice and then for the Tribunal to permit withdrawal of amount of insured to take back. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal holds good as to apportionment and permission for withdrawal of amounts and costs. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.