JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside or modify the order of the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2007, dated 24.11.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sivakasi and allow the appeal with costs. 2. The appellant Insurance Company, filed the appeal against the order, dated 24.11.2010, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,34,500/-. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2007, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-, for the death of husband of the first respondent, father of the second respondent and son of the third respondent, who died in the accident, that occurred on 18.11.2007. 3. Facts of the case:- According to the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent was driving Hero Honda Motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against one Ramakrishnan, from behind. Due to which, the said Ramakrishnan sustained injuries and died, in spite of medical treatment. The deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- at the time of accident. He was aged about 37 years and therefore, they claimed Rs. 7,00,000/-, as compensation. 4. The fourth respondent/owner and rider of the vehicle denied all the allegations made by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the fourth respondent, he was driving the vehicle carefully. The deceased was drunk at the time of alleged accident. He suddenly tried to cross the road in front of the vehicle of fourth respondent and he fell down in the road and sustained injuries. He suffered injuries only due to his own negligence. He also stated that the appellant, who is the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 5. The appellant filed counter statement stating that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by the fourth respondent, but the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. The appellant also stated that the fourth respondent did not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one Velmurugan eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A3. The fourth respondent did not examine himself and did not mark any documents. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one Velmurugan eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A3. The fourth respondent did not examine himself and did not mark any documents. The appellant examined two witnesses, viz., one Rabija Banu and one Jeyaprakash, as R.Ws.1 & 2 and marked three documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. 7. The Tribunal based on the pleadings and evidence concluded that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,34,500/-. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fourth respondent has violated the policy condition and did not have any valid licence for driving the two wheeler. The Tribunal wrongly held that the rider of the motorcycle was in possession of LMV licence and he was not disqualified in driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal is not correct in fixing the age of the deceased as 37 years and adopting multiplier of 16, when there is no proof for the same. The learned counsel for appellant relied on the following judgments : (i) 2009 (1) TNMAC 242 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Angad Kol & others), wherein in paragraphs 18 & 19, it has been held as follows : 18. From the discussions made herein before, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the Insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records. 19. By an order dated 10.7.2008, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution while directing the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with liberty to the Claimants to withdraw the same give right to the appellant to recover the said amount from the owner and the driver of the vehicle being Respondent Nos.6 and 7. (ii) 2011 (1) TNMAC 288 (United India Insurance Co. (ii) 2011 (1) TNMAC 288 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. E. Rajamanickam), wherein in paragraph 10, it has been held as follows:- 10. A reading of the above judgments would show that if there is any violation of the conditions to the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. In the instant case, the driver of the two wheeler had not possessed with any type of driving licence at the time of accident and at least, if the case of the Insurance Company that the rider of the two wheeler did not have a valid driving licence, this Court can order 'pay and recover'. But, this is the case of 'no licence'. Therefore, the Principle of 'pay and recover' cannot be applied to this case. Though the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent relied upon the judgments, namely, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and others 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.G. Vimala and others, 2010 (1) TN MAC 340; and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Devi, 2010 (1) TNMAC 680 (DB) (All), they cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case since all the decisions dealt with the case of non-possession of a valid driving licence. If a person rides the two wheeler without licence, he is not legally authorised to drive the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant Insurance Company had discharged its burden to the effect that the driver of the 2nd Respondent/owner of the vehicle has not possessed of any licence on the date of accident. Further, neither the 2nd Respondent nor his driver had chosen to give any evidence to that effect. Under such circumstances, the question of 'pay and recover', in the instant case, does not arise. But, without considering these aspects, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the part of the Appellant-Insurance Company. Hence, in my considered opinion, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability and as such, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, the same is set aside." In the above said judgments, it has been held that when the driver of vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, the insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from owner and driver of the vehicle. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the fourth respondent. He also contended that the compensation awarded is very low, as the Tribunal without any basis did not accept that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal also granted a very meagre amount as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and he prayed for enhancement of compensation, invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent. 11. The points for consideration in this appeal are:- (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or excessive? ; and (ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation? 12. The appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of the fourth respondent. In the present case, fourth respondent possessed licence to drive four wheeler, but he did not possess licence to drive two wheeler. In the circumstances, the Tribunal relying on the judgment reported in II (1995) ACC 227 (The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Madura v. Velmurugan and another), held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, as a vehicle of fourth respondent was insured with them at the time of accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the fourth respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, for driving the two wheeler. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. This contention is untenable. In the judgment reported in 2011 (1) TNMAC 288 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. E. Rajamanickam), this Court held that in case of Driver not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company must pay in the first instance and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. In the judgment reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 242 (SC) [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. E. Rajamanickam), this Court held that in case of Driver not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company must pay in the first instance and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. In the judgment reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 242 (SC) [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Angad Kol & others], wherein in paragraphs 18 & 19, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is breach of condition of insurance is apparent on the face of record, the insurance Company is directed to pay compensation amounts and liberty was given to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 13. In the present case, the driver of the two wheeler possessed LMV licence. But, he did not possess the driving licence to drive two wheeler. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. At the same time, the Tribunal is not correct in fastening the liability only on the appellant. In view of the fact that the fourth respondent, driver of the two wheeler did not possess valid driving licence, the owner of the two wheeler is liable to pay compensation. 14. Following the judgments referred to above, I direct the appellant/Insurance company to pay compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. 15. The next question is whether the compensation awarded is just and proper or excessive. The respondents 1 to 3 did not substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, by producing any document. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. This amount is reasonable. In the Postmortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 37 years. The Tribunal, based on the Postmortem report, fixed the age of deceased as 37 and applied multiplier 16' and fixed the compensation at Rs. 3,84,000/-, after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 16'. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), fixed multiplier of 15, when the age of the deceased is 37. The Tribunal, in view of the judgment reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (supra), is not correct in applying multiplier 16'. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), fixed multiplier of 15, when the age of the deceased is 37. The Tribunal, in view of the judgment reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (supra), is not correct in applying multiplier 16'. In the circumstances, the compensation has to be arrived at by applying multiplier 15' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Applying multiplier 15', the compensation payable is Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = 3,60,000/-. As far as the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- granted for loss of consortium to the first respondent and Rs. 30,000/- for loss of love and affection to the respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, they are too meagre. The first respondent had lost her husband at young age. Once the wife of the deceased is compensated under head 'loss of consortium', which includes the loss of love and affection, there cannot be any separate award under the head 'loss of love and affection' to the wife of the deceased. The compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of consortium will be proper compensation. Similarly, the second respondent lost his father at an young age and the third respondent lost her son. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each for loss of love and affection, is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 16. In the result, the order of Tribunal is modified as follows:- S. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1 Loss of income Rs.3,84,000/- Rs. 3,60,000 Reduced 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 50,000 Enhanced 3 Loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 & 3 (each Rs. 50,000) Rs. 30,000/- Rs.1,00,000 Enhanced 4 Transportation charges Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000 Confirmed 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Confirmed 6 Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500 Rs. 2,500 Confirmed Total Rs. 4,34,500 Rs.5,20,500 Modified 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed of and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5,20,500/- (Rupees Five Lakh twenty thousand and five hundred only), as total compensation. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Confirmed 6 Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500 Rs. 2,500 Confirmed Total Rs. 4,34,500 Rs.5,20,500 Modified 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed of and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5,20,500/- (Rupees Five Lakh twenty thousand and five hundred only), as total compensation. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition on Rs. 4,34,500/- and on the enhanced amount from the date of this judgment till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent would be entitled to Rs. 2,19,250/- and the second respondent would be entitled to Rs. 2,14,250/- and the third respondent would be entitled to Rs. 87,000/- with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn. The Tribunal shall deposit the share of the second respondent, who is minor claimant, in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, which shall be renewed periodically till he attains majority. The first respondent- mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw interest on the share of her minor child, viz., the second respondent herein, once in three months from the Bank directly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.