JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by National Insurance Company(NIC) challenging the judgment and award dated 29th May, 2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sonitpur in MAC case 334/2001 directing the insurance company to pay Rs 1,77,000/- towards compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. 2) One Anita Rani Chanda as claimant filed a claim petition before the jurisdictional Tribunal at Tezpur stating that when her 17-year-old son Uddhab Chanda and his cousin Madhumala Dey were coming to her house on a bicycle along the left side of a PWD road they were knocked down from behind by a truck(AS-12/6397) plying in a very rash and negligent manner and they received serious injuries as a result and when they were taken to nearby Kanaklota Civil Hospital in a very critical condition Madhumala died on the way and her son died after 2 hours of hospitalisation. It is stated in the claim petition that the opposite party 1 and 2(the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, respectively) were duly insured with the opposite party no: 3. The claimant prayed that a compensation of Rs 8 lakh be paid to her. 3) Though notified, the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not turn up. The opposite party 3 appeared and submitted written statement denying the claims, specifically at para 15 therein that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the answering opposite party, at all. It is further pleaded that the opposite party 3 is not liable to make ad interim payment under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The opposite party 3, therefore, prayed that the NIC be exonerated of the liability to pay compensation, whatsoever. 4) Upon consideration of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues. (i) Whether the alleged accident took place due to rasn and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle No.AS-12/6397? (ii) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased leading to the accident in question? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation as prayed for, and if yes, from whom and to what extent? (i) Whether the alleged accident took place due to rasn and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle No.AS-12/6397? (ii) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased leading to the accident in question? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation as prayed for, and if yes, from whom and to what extent? 5) Claimant examined herself as PW1 and one Omar Ali as PW2 by filing evidence in the form of an affidavit. None of the opposite parties were cross-examined by the contesting opposite parties i.e. NIC, owner and driver; against whom the proceeding was held ex parte. 6) In course of deposition PW1 stated that on 18.4.2001 around 6 AM when Uddhab and Madhumala were coming from the Khanamukh Centre on a bicycle towards their home along a PWD road they were knocked down from behind by a truck(AS-12/6397) plying in a very rash and negligent manner and they received serious injuries as a result and when they were taken to nearby Kanaklota Civil Hospital in a very critical condition Madhumala died on the way and her son died after 2 hours of hospitalisation and the bicycle was totally damaged. It is disclosed that Uddhab was 17 years of age at the time of accident and that the vehicle was insured with the NIC. Claimant, however, did not, and could not, disclose policy number. The insurance company on the other hand specifically denied in paragraph 15 of the written statement to having any insurance cover of the vehicle. Under such circumstances there was no question of furnishing policy number by NIC. The NIC, however, did not lead evidence. Whereas the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle appears to have not contested the proceeding from the beginning. 7) After considering the material available on record the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the mini truck(AS-12/6397) and that there is no evidence on record suggesting any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Issue no. 2 was accordingly decided in favour of the claimant. 7) After considering the material available on record the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the mini truck(AS-12/6397) and that there is no evidence on record suggesting any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Issue no. 2 was accordingly decided in favour of the claimant. 8) As regards issue 3 the learned Tribunal considered a notional income of Rs 15,000/- and by deducting one-third therefrom annual dependency was fixed at Rs 10,000/- and then by considering the age of the deceased multiplier 15 was chosen and thereupon the total loss of dependency was calculated at Rs 1,50,000/-. The learned Tribunal assessed the loss of expectation at Rs 25,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs 2000/-. Thus total compensation was calculated at Rs ,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till payment to be made by the opposite party 3, without however recording any finding whether the offending vehicle was covered by any insurance policy whatsoever and, if so, whether such insurance policy pertains to the opposite party 3. The fact remains that the claimant did not disclose any policy number and the insurance company denied to having any insurance policy. The owner, who is the real person to be held liable for compensation, preferred to stay away from the proceeding and did not take any plea that he is indemnified by insurance policy. Under such circumstances in the absence of any material whatsoever it was not possible on the part of the learned Tribunal to arrive at a finding that the vehicle was under any insurance policy of the opposite party no:3 but without arriving at any such finding the opposite party no:3 was saddled with the liability and it is this part of the judgment and award dated 29th May, 2007 that is challenged by the insurance company not only on the point of liability but also the quantum. 9) I have heard Shri SS Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr BJ Mukherjee for the appellant and Shri GP Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. M Kalita for the claimant and Mr NN Upadhaya, learned counsel for the owner. The name of the driver was struck off and so nobody has entered appearance on his behalf. 9) I have heard Shri SS Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr BJ Mukherjee for the appellant and Shri GP Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. M Kalita for the claimant and Mr NN Upadhaya, learned counsel for the owner. The name of the driver was struck off and so nobody has entered appearance on his behalf. Also perused the lower court records. 10) A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award would show that nowhere the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation because of existence of insurance policy. No insurance policy is mentioned. No insurance policy is also brought on record. The insurance company specifically denied in paragraph 15 of the written statement as to the existence of any insurance policy and so production of any document by it cannot arise. Under such circumstances it is the owner of the vehicle who could have showed any insurance policy and that it was in force on the relevant date and time. As the owner preferred to stay away from the proceeding the learned Tribunal was not in a position to arrive at a finding that there was an insurance policy, as alleged in paragraph 17 of the claim petition. Even in paragraph 17 of the claim petition policy number is not disclosed and it is vaguely stated that the vehicle was covered by insurance of National Insurance Company Ltd. The learned Tribunal having not arrived at a finding that there was an insurance policy in force on the relevant date and time the direction to insurance company to make payment of compensation has become virtually untenable and accordingly this part of the impugned award cannot be sustained. In the absence of any material to show that there was a valid insurance on the date and time of accident the insurance company cannot be held liable to make payment of any compensation. As the learned Tribunal is vested with the duty and jurisdiction to assess a just compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is necessary to examine whether the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is correct. As the learned Tribunal is vested with the duty and jurisdiction to assess a just compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is necessary to examine whether the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is correct. 11) Sri BJ Mukherjee, learned counsel for the insurance company, pointed out that the multiplier was chosen by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased(17 years at the time of accident) and the educational status(a student). Claimant is the mother of the deceased and she was 46 years of age on the relevant date and so the learned Tribunal ought to have chosen a multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant and not with reference to the age of the deceased. In this connection, Sri Mukherjee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kr. Sharma and another in Civil Appeal 4497/2015 dated 15th May, 2015. 12) I have perused the examination-in-chief to find out the age of the claimant at the relevant time and found no cross-examination in that regard and so what has been stated in the examination-in-chief has gone on unrebutted in the evidence. The claimant has described herself to be aged about 46 years on the date of her deposition. In that view of the matter if her age 46 years is considered to be the reference age for the purpose of choosing the multiplier, the multiplier ought to have been 13 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporatioin reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein the guidelines for choosing multipliers are laid down and according to which multiplier 13 should be appropriate in this case. 13) Accordingly the compensation of Rs 1,77,000/- is modified to the following extent without interfering in the other part of the award like funeral expenses etc. (i) Loss of dependency(10,000x13) = Rs 1,30,000.00 (ii) Loss of care and affection = Rs 1,00,000.00 (iii) Loss of expectation = Rs 25,000.00 (iv) Funeral expense = Rs 2,000.00 ............................ Total = Rs 2,57,000.00 (Rupees two lakh, and fifty-seven thousand). (i) Loss of dependency(10,000x13) = Rs 1,30,000.00 (ii) Loss of care and affection = Rs 1,00,000.00 (iii) Loss of expectation = Rs 25,000.00 (iv) Funeral expense = Rs 2,000.00 ............................ Total = Rs 2,57,000.00 (Rupees two lakh, and fifty-seven thousand). 14) The compensation amount of Rs 2,57,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation, to be deposited with the jurisdictional Tribunal within a period of three months from today and upon such deposit the amount to be disbursed to the claimant on due identification. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. LCR be sent to the Tribunal at once.