JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in both these appeals is to the judgment and award, dated 30th April, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.13MAC/2 of 2008, titled as Shri Vishal Gupta and another versus Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.14,75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was directed to satisfy the impugned award at the first instance with right of recovery (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The owner-insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 234 of 2011 on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer. 4. The insurer has called in question the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 395 of 2012 on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Since both these appeals are outcome of a common award, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 6. Admittedly, the owner-insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had not led any evidence before the Tribunal. However, he has moved an application before this Court for taking on record the driving licence, which was allowed vide order, dated 30th May, 2013. 7. The perusal of the driving licence, which is at page 32 of the paper book, does disclose that the driving licence was valid up to 13th June, 2015, thus, was valid at the time of the accident. The insurer has also issued a certificate (page 33 of the paper book) to the effect that it has settled the claim of the owner-insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle on total loss basis. 8. After examining the pleadings, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 6th January, 2009: “1. Whether Smt. Kumkum Jain died on account of rash or negligent driving of car No. HP376252 by respondent No.1 Anil Kumar on 05-1-2008 at about 3.15 PM near Kishanpura, as alleged? OPP 2. 8. After examining the pleadings, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 6th January, 2009: “1. Whether Smt. Kumkum Jain died on account of rash or negligent driving of car No. HP376252 by respondent No.1 Anil Kumar on 05-1-2008 at about 3.15 PM near Kishanpura, as alleged? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? OPR2 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No. 1 by the petitioners, as alleged? OPR2 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present from, as alleged? OPR2 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR2 7. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present petition, as alleged? OPR2 8. Relief.” 9. It is apt to record herein that the parties were asked to lead evidence. The insurer has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus to prove issues No.3 to 7. The Tribunal has rightly decided issues No.4 to 7, but has fallen in an error in determining issue No.3. 10. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus to prove issue No.3, has not led any evidence and the issue was to be decided against the insurer, but came to be decided against the owner-insured-cum-driver. 11. Perusal of the record does disclose that the insurer has not even made an attempt to move an application before the Tribunal for directing the owner-insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to place on record the driving licence. However, now, the driving licence has been placed on record, which is valid and effective one, as discussed hereinabove. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are set aside and the insurer is saddled with liability. 12. Mr. However, now, the driving licence has been placed on record, which is valid and effective one, as discussed hereinabove. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are set aside and the insurer is saddled with liability. 12. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer in FAO No.395 of 2012, argued that the claimants are the sons of the deceased, the owner-insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle is the husband of the deceased and father of the claimants and the amount awarded is at higher side. 13. The argument, though attractive, is not tenable for the reason that the Tribunal, while taking into account the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.28,979/- per month, has assessed Rs.12,000/- as loss of income per month. 14. The age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident, which is not in dispute. The multiplier of 10' has rightly been applied by the Tribunal while keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). 15. It appears to be a case for enhancement of compensation, but, unfortunately, the claimants have not questioned the same, thus, I deem it proper not to interfere with the quantum of compensation. 16. Having said so, the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. 17. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheques or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, FAO No. 234 of 2011 is allowed, FAO No. 395 of 2012 is dismissed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.