JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 26th April, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Case No. 113 of 2004, titled as Smt. Anita Sharma & others versus The Oriental Insurance Company & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,76,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellant-insurer (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants and the owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The only question which is to be determined is – whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with liability or otherwise? 4. In order to determine the issue, the brief facts of the case are to be noted. Brief facts: 5. The claimants, being the victims of the motor vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that the deceased, namely Shri Rakesh Sharma, became victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Jai Pal, while driving the Maruti Van–Taxi, bearing registration No. HP-01 A-0155, rashly and negligently on 6th November, 2004, at Pashada nullah on NH-22 near Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur, at about 11.00 p.m., deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 6. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 11,000/- as a shopkeeper and Rs.5,000/- from agricultural and horticultural vocations; the claimants have no other source of income and have been deprived of their source of dependency; the widow, Smt. Anita Sharma, has lost her matrimonial home and other claimants have lost their father, are deprived of love and affection. 7. The appellant-respondent No. 1 filed reply and contested the claim petition on various grounds. Respondent No. 2 has also filed reply but virtually has not contested the claim petition. 8. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 27th April, 2005: ?1. Whether Sh. 7. The appellant-respondent No. 1 filed reply and contested the claim petition on various grounds. Respondent No. 2 has also filed reply but virtually has not contested the claim petition. 8. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 27th April, 2005: ?1. Whether Sh. Rakesh Sharma had died on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. HP-01 A-0155? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable against respondent No. 1? OPR-1 4. Whether the petitioner had instituted claim petition in collusion with respondent No. 2? OPR-1 5. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-01 A-0155 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? If so, with what effect? OPR-1 6. Relief.? 9. The claimants have examined four witnesses including one of the claimant, Smt. Anita Sharma. The owner-insured has stepped into the witness box as RW-2. The appellant insurer has examined an official, namely Shri Hira Lal, from the SDM Office as RW-1 and Shri Vipul Prabhakar as RW-3 in support of its case. After scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the claim petition came to be granted. Issue No. 1: 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the deceased driver, namely Shri Jai Pal, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which Shri Rakesh Sharma lost his life. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3, 4 and 5 before deciding issue No. 2. Issues No. 3 and 4: 12. The appellant-insurer has examined only two witnesses relating to driving licence. It has not led any evidence to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and there was a collusion between the claimants and the owner-insured. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 13. The appellant-insurer has examined only two witnesses relating to driving licence. It has not led any evidence to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and there was a collusion between the claimants and the owner-insured. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valild and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the licence was not obtained as per the procedure contained in Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ?the MV Act?). 14. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel is devoid of any force for the following reason: 15. The appellant-insurer has examined Shri Hira Lal as RW-1, who is an official from the office of Registering and Licencing Authority and has stated that the driver was having licence to driver Light Motor Vehicles and further stated that TPT licence can be issued without having learner's licence. 16. Admittedly, the driver was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. This Court in a bunch of appeals, FAO No. 141 of 2012, titled as Bimla Devi versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & others, being the lead case, FAO No. 376 of 2010, titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Prabhat Singh & others, decided on 18th July, 2014, and FAO No. 54 of 2012, titled as Mahesh Kumar & another versus Smt. Piaro Devi & others, decided on 25th July, 2014, held that a driver, who is having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle is not required to have the endorsement to drive passengers vehicle. 17. Even otherwise, the driver was having TPT endorsement on the driving licence and RW-1 has deposed that the licence could have been issued even without having the learner's licence. 18. It was for the appellant-insurer to prove that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the accident has occurred due to the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was competent to drive one kind of the vehicle and was found driving different kind of vehicle, which it has failed to do so. 19. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurer has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Walaiti Ram and others, reported in 2006 ACJ 2748 . The judgment is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand for the reason that the endorsement of heavy goods vehicle-offending vehicle was made in the said licence after the accident had taken place. 20. The Tribunal has rightly discussed issue No. 5 in para 13 of the impugned award, is legally sound, needs no interference. Accordingly, findings returned on issue No. 5 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 21. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the amount awarded is excessive. The argument is again devoid of any force. It was for the appellant-insurer to prove the same. Even otherwise, the insurer cannot question the same. 22. The claimants have led evidence to the effect that the deceased was running a shop in the name of Ashiana Watch Service, was selling televisions, watches, radio and tapes in the said shop and was an income tax payee. The claimants have also led evidence to the effect that he was having an apple orchard and was having income of Rs. 60,000/- - Rs. 70,000/- per annum from the said orchard. The Tribunal, while taking into consideration the income tax return filed by the deceased, held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.90,000/- per annum and after deducting one third, held that the claimants have suffered loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- per annum. 23. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16' while keeping in view the date of birth of the deceased recorded in the copy of the matriculation certificate, in terms of which the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident and held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,60,000/- under the head 'loss of source of dependency', Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', Rs.1,000/- under the head 'taxi charges' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral charges', total compensation amounting to Rs.9,76,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded is not excessive in any way, is just and proper, needs no interference. 24. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 25. Thus, the compensation awarded is not excessive in any way, is just and proper, needs no interference. 24. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 25. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.