ORDER This file is brought under the heading “For Hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC”. Heard the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment/Order dated 13th April, 2012 and Award dated 18th June, 2012 passed in M.V. Claim Case No. 06 of 2004 / 38 of 2011by Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-III-Cum-Claim Tribunal, Nawada, which arising out of death of Srimati Anita Devi @ Kumar Anita, who undisputedly died on 23rd August, 2003 in a road accident, wherein, the vehicle in question owned by respondent no. 1, namely, Md. Nasim Khan. 3. The Claim Tribunal Below awarded a sum of Rs. 4,12,000/- in favour of her (deceased) children surviving claimants since her husband also died during the pendency of the claim application and on the ground of validity of driving licence shifted the liability upon the owner, i.e., respondent no. 1, who did not prefer any appeal, but here filed a counter affidavit alongwith copy of driving licence indicating the same was valid on the fateful day of accident. 4. The very limited question in this appeal is that taking into consideration the age of the deceased what would be the actual multiplier? According to the Claim Tribunal Below, it was thirteen (13), whereas, it is undisputed submission of the Bar that it ought to have been sixteen (16) and, in that view of the matter, the amount comes to the tune of Rs. 26,000 x 16 (4,16,000/-) + Rs. 5,000/- (addition towards pain and suffering) + Rs. 5,000/- (addition towards love and affection of total two children) + Rs. 3,000/- (funeral expenses) + Rs. 15,000/- (expenses towards treatment) = Rs. 4,44,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Four Thousand). 5. The liability has been shifted by the Claim Tribunal Below upon the owner (respondent no. 1) only on the ground that during the relevant period the driver of the vehicle had not holding valid licence, but now it becomes undisputed as is also vividly evident from Exhibit-16, now read coupled with Annexure-3 of the counter affidavit, that it was valid on the date of accident. Hence, the insurer (respondent no. 2) is held liable to compensate the amount, so awarded, and now enhanced. 6. Further, taking into consideration, the owner (respondent no. Hence, the insurer (respondent no. 2) is held liable to compensate the amount, so awarded, and now enhanced. 6. Further, taking into consideration, the owner (respondent no. 1) has neither preferred any appeal nor made cross objection etc., he ought to have paid the money to the claimants and initiate process for realization from the insurer (respondent no. 2), if so advisable, but did nothing. 7. Thus, the owner (respondent no. 1) deserves to pay penalty and as such liable to pay the interest at the rate ordered by the Claim Tribunal Below over the amount so awarded against him from the date of award till date. Accordingly, ordered to pay such amount to the claimants within two months. Simultaneously, the insurer (respondent no. 2) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,44,000/- to the claimants (appellants) with interest at the rate awarded by the Claim Tribunal Below excluding the period during date of award till date within two months, failing which shall also be liable to pay the interest for the period of exclusion also in addition to such payment by the owner. However, as prayed the insurer (respondent no. 2) has right of recovery from the owner (respondent no. 1), if so wishes, but same shall not be extended to the additional amount, if paid, to the claimants. 9. With the above observation, this appeal is hereby disposed of.