JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th April, 2007, passed in MVC No. 463 of 2005, by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (for short, 'Tribunal'), for reduction of compensation, on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by Tribunal is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased and that the direction issued to it to indemnify the award cannot be sustained. The facts in brief are that, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 herein are the wife, minor child aged about one month and mother of deceased Anantharama Shetty. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, contending that at about 5:20 P.M., on 14-11-2004, when the deceased was riding Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/E-6460, from Perdoor towards Hiriadka, near Puthige, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of a Mini Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-20/A-2211 coming from Hiriadka side. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Kamath Nursing Home, Hiriadka, but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 2. On account of the death of the deceased persons, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation as stated above against the appellant/Insurer. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th April, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,88,900/-, under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the appellant herein/Insurer to indemnify the entire compensation awarded in the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal as also the liability fastened on it, the appellant is in appeal before this Court seeking substantial reduction of compensation on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by Tribunal is on the higher side and liable to be reassessed in accordance with law. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Insurer and the learned Counsel appearing for claimants, for considerable length of time. 4. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Insurer and the learned Counsel appearing for claimants, for considerable length of time. 4. Sri A. Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submits that, the claim petition filed by claimants as against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in issuing a direction to the Insurer to indemnify the award amount and the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the Salary Certificate, showing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,800/- per month and the same cannot be sustained for the reason that there is no substantive proof of the income of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads is liable to be reduced substantially by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 5. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for claimants 1 to 3 inter alia contended and substantiated that the Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and documentary evidence at Exs. P. 1 to P. 5, has passed the impugned judgment and award, awarding compensation and directing the Insurer to indemnify the award passed by it. He submits that the Insurer has neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents and inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, they have not made any effort to examine either the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle. If it is the case of the Insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence, then, they ought to have taken the said ground in the memorandum of appeal. The only ground that is taken is that, the claim petition has been dismissed against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and income taken is on the higher side. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered all these aspects at paragraph 11 of its judgment and directed the Insurer to indemnify the award. Hence, it does not call for interference and the appeal filed by the Insurer is liable to be dismissed. 6. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered all these aspects at paragraph 11 of its judgment and directed the Insurer to indemnify the award. Hence, it does not call for interference and the appeal filed by the Insurer is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurer and learned Counsel appearing for claimants and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file including the original records placed before us, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs. 6,88,900/-, towards loss of dependency and conventional heads. 7. After critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, it is seen that occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Anantharama Shetty are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the wife was aged about 23 years, minor child was just a month old and the mother of deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. They have filed the claim petition against the Insurer, owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It is significant to note that the matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 19th December, 2005. Thereafter, the appellant-Insurer was represented by a Counsel. Subsequently, on 27th March, 2006, notice was ordered by RPAD to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to be returned by 27th April, 2006. Thereafter nothing is forthcoming in the order sheet upto page No. 8, regarding the notice issued to owner and driver of the offending vehicle. There is no order as such passed by the Presiding Officer of the jurisdictional Tribunal that the claim petition filed by the claimants against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed, as submitted and urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer. But, inadvertently, while passing the impugned judgment, at paragraph 3, the Tribunal has observed that since no steps have been taken as against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the claim petition filed by claimants as against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed. But, inadvertently, while passing the impugned judgment, at paragraph 3, the Tribunal has observed that since no steps have been taken as against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the claim petition filed by claimants as against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed. The said finding recorded by Tribunal is contrary to the order sheet maintained by it and there is also no reference as such that RPAD has been issued in respect of them and if not returned within the prescribed time, deemed to have been held sufficient. Because of this lapse on the part of the Tribunal, learned Counsel appearing for Insurer cannot take undue advantage of the said aspect and question the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment, taking a specific ground that they did not have the opportunity of examining the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, they have not examined the owner or driver of the offending vehicle and the burden lies on the insurer to examine the owner and driver of offending vehicle. But, they have contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, as ground No. 11 in the memorandum of appeal before this Court. When the claim petition filed by claimants against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is dismissed, the said ground is not a valid ground to assail the correctness of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and other material available on its file, has recorded a finding of fact and issued necessary direction to the Insurer at paragraph 11 of its judgment to indemnify the award passed by Tribunal. The same is just and proper and we do not find any perversity or illegality as such committed and hence, it does not call for interference by this Court nor we find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for Insurer. 8. Further, so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen that the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident. It is stated by claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 200/- per day. 8. Further, so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen that the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident. It is stated by claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 200/- per day. But, based on the documentary evidence at Ex. P. 5-Salary Certificate issued by Suraj Industries, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,800/- per month. The same, according to us is just and proper and we not propose to interfere in the same. Further, the claimants are wife, minor child and mother who are fully dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal, has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The same is as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Hence, the same does not call for interference. 9. In fact, after going through the impugned judgment, it can be seen that the multiplier of 16' adopted by Tribunal is on the lower side and actually for the age of the deceased being 28 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 17' as per the Apex Court decision in Smt. Sarla Verma's case. Further, if the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision in the case of AIR 2009 SC 3104 , is applied, the claimants would be entitled to additional 30% towards future prospects of the deceased. But, since the claimants have not filed any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award, we are not inclined to enhance the compensation and accordingly, confirm the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Having regard to the totality of the case on hand and other facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well-considered judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. Therefore, the appeal filed by appellant/Insurer is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The amount in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Further, the Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation as ordered by the Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The amount in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Further, the Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation as ordered by the Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Office to draw award, accordingly.