ORDER N.K. Mody , J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29-11-08 passed by VII AMACT, Fast Track, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 44/07 whereby claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 4,14,036/- was awarded on account of death of one Ishwar in a motor accident which took place on 5-6-07, present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the deceased was aged 23 years. It is submitted that learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3676/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,14,036/-. It is submitted that income of the deceased is assessed on higher side and deduction of 1/3rd is also on lower side as the deceased was bachelor. It is submitted that the amount awarded is on higher side. It is further submitted that since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 5 without valid driving license, therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant liable. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contested the case, but did not appear in witness box and also the license was not produced, while appellant has adduced evidence by examining RTO and officers of the appellant to prove that respondent No. 5 was not possessing valid driving licence. It is submitted that the appeal be allowed and findings whereby appellant has been held liable be set aside or in alternate amount be reduced. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that since the appellant failed to prove that respondent No. 5 was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly held the appellant liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirabjit Kaur, 2010 ACJ 121, wherein Delhi High Court held that merely giving notice to owner to produce driving licence of driver of admission of owner that driver was not holding a driving license at relevant time, will not absolve the Insurance Co. from liability. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka, 1995 ACJ 358, wherein Insurance Co. from liability. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka, 1995 ACJ 358, wherein Insurance Co. neither summoned the driver, nor RTA official to prove that driver did not have any licence, and also Insurance Co. appointed an investigation officer and his report was filed without examining him, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that burden of proof was on Insurance Co. and it has not discharged its burden by leading cogent evidence, hence Insurance Co. is liable. Learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed. 4. From perusal of record, it is evident that the accident is of the year 2007, the income assessed as Rs. 3676/- appears to be just and proper. Since the deceased was bachelor, therefore, one half ought to have been deducted on account of personal expenses. After applying the multiplier of 13, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall be entitled for the following amount:-- Rs. 2,86,738 Towards loss of dependence. Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of estate. Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 3,06,738 Total Thus, the amount is reduced to Rs. 3,06, 738/- from Rs. 4,14,038/- 5. So far as liability is concerned, it appears that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 4 and was driven by respondent No. 5. The offending vehicle was tempo trax. To prove that respondent No. 5 was not possessing valid driving license, appellant has examined Dilip Rao from the Office of RTO, Ujjain to prove that no license was issued to respondent No. 5 to drive commercial vehicle Appellant has also examined Amul Mandloi, Legal Executive who has proved investigation report in which it was found that license which the respondent No. 5 was possessing was not valid to drive transport vehicle. Thus, prima facie evidence is adduced by the appellant to prove that respondent No. 5 was not possessing valid driving license. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not appear in witness box. License of respondent No. 5 was not produced. In the facts and circumstances of the case since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, at least right of recovery ought to have been given to the appellant. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not appear in witness box. License of respondent No. 5 was not produced. In the facts and circumstances of the case since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, at least right of recovery ought to have been given to the appellant. In view of this, appeal is allowed and amount is reduced by Rs. 1,07,300/- and the findings whereby appellant has been held liable is modified to the extent that appellant shall pay and shall have right to recover the same from respondent Nos. 4 and 5. If this option is exercised, then respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall be at liberty to demonstrate that respondent No. 5 was possessing valid driving license at the relevant time to drive the offending vehicle provided the objection is filed coupled with a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. With the aforesaid modification, appeal stands disposed of.