JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimant-appellant Kali Devi challenging the judgment cum award dated 18.5.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in M.A.C. Case No. 17/1998, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded the appellant a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation upon the death of her only son Jagu Ram, aged 8 years. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 27.12.1997, the deceased Jagu Ram had gone to Rajaldesar for grazing cattle. At about 4.00 P.M., after having crossed the national highway, he had come to side on the road. At that time, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-G-5760 came from the side of Rajaldesar and hit the deceased Jagu Ram. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the truck driver Bhanwar Singh, the respondent No. 2 herein. The vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 1 Desai Brothers Limited and was insured by the respondent No. 3, the New India Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the accident, Jagu Ram died on spot. 3. The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition under Section 156 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh claiming compensation of Rs. 7,34,000/-. The learned Tribunal framed usual issues regarding the accident having occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Bhanwar Singh, the defences raised by the Insurance Company, the entitlement of the claimant to receive compensation and the quantum thereof. 4. The issue No. 1 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver being the cause of the accident was decided in favour of the claimant and against the non-claimants. The issue No. 3 regarding the objections raised by the Insurance Company was decided in its favour holding that the non-claimant No. 2, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Vineet Jain and Shri K.L. Lodha appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error of facts as well as law in not calculating the compensation awardable to the appellant by applying the mandatory criterion. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Vineet Jain and Shri K.L. Lodha appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error of facts as well as law in not calculating the compensation awardable to the appellant by applying the mandatory criterion. It is submitted that the deceased was the only son of the appellant and, thus, appropriate compensation should have been awarded to the claimant-appellant towards loss of love, affection and service. They also submitted that the learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to satisfy the award. Learned Counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the charge-sheet filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle. A photo copy of the driving licence held by Bhanwar Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle was collected from him during investigation. If at all the Insurance Company wanted to justify and prove its defences, then, it was free to procure the licence from the Court concerned and then to prove that the driver was not having a licence authorising him to drive the truck. In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that a direction to pay and recover be issued in favour of the claimant-appellant. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Dhiraj Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He urged that the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was available on record and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to satisfy the award. He however candidly admitted that despite service, the respondents did not file any written statement to the claim petition. 7. Learned Counsel Shri Anil Bachhawat appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 - the Insurance Company urged that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the award. He further submitted that the exoneration of the Insurance Company on the ground that the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the. He further submitted that the exoneration of the Insurance Company on the ground that the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the. parties, perused the impugned judgment cum award, the record as well as the certified copy of the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation of the F.I.R. No. 120/1997, which was registered against the respondent driver of the offending vehicle. 9. It is clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet that a photo star copy of the driving licence was filed by the police along with the challan papers. The burden of proving a fact or a defence is upon the party who alleges it. Thus, if at all the Insurance Company was desirous of substantiating its plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any licence at all, then, the Insurance Company could have procured the licence from the challan papers and could have demonstrated that the licence was not valid for driving a transport vehicle. In this view of the matter, the total exoneration of the Insurance Company from the burden of satisfying the award cannot be applied. As it is not a case of no licence, applying the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 , the Insurance Company is held liable to make payment of the award as assessed by this Court to the claimant and, thereafter, to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 10. Now, coming to the issue of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. It is a case of great hardship as the claimant is a widow and she lost her only son the deceased Jagu Ram aged 8 years in the accident. However, in case of children below 15 years of age, assessing the future income by any degree of certainty is not possible. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that j the learned Tribunal was not totally unjustified in not awarding the compensation on a lump sum basis. 11. However, in case of children below 15 years of age, assessing the future income by any degree of certainty is not possible. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that j the learned Tribunal was not totally unjustified in not awarding the compensation on a lump sum basis. 11. However, in the opinion of this Court, as the claimant is a widow and has : lost her only son the deceased Jagu Ram aged 8 years in an unfortunate accident and keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 , this Court feels that a lump sum compensation of rupees two lacs and twenty five thousand deserves to be awarded to the appellant. 12. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled to receive a total compensation of rupees two lacs and twenty five thousand in all with an interest of 7.5% on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent No. 3 - the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant as directed above and thereafter shall be free to recover the same from the respondents No. 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question by filing execution proceedings in the Trial Court. Record be sent back forthwith.No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******