JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 5th June, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (for short =the Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 42 of 2008, titled as Tilak Raj versus Shri Avtar Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,64,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and appellant-owner was saddled with liability (for short =the impugned award'). 2. The claimant, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The owner-insured has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-owner/insured argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with the liability and the amount awarded is excessive. 5. Thus, the following questions are to be determined in this appeal: 1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner-insured with liability and discharged the insurer? 2. Whether the amount awarded is adequate? 6. In order to determine the aforesaid questions, it is necessary to examine the pleadings of the parties and record. 7. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 8. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Qualis, bearing No. PB-18-J-0074 by its driver-respondent No. 2, as alleged? ..OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?…OPRs 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 2 at the time of accident in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? …OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident?…OPR-3 6. Relief.? 10. The parties led evidence. …OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident?…OPR-3 6. Relief.? 10. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the owner-insured has committed willful breach, saddled him with liability and discharged the insurer and granted compensation to the tune of 3,64,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimant. Issue No. 1 11. There is no dispute qua findings recorded on issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 12. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5. Issue No. 3 13. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, thus have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld. Issues No. 4 & 5 14. The Tribunal has held that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the same was in the name of Jaswinder Singh, son of Shri Karam Singh and not in the name of Sarvjeet Singh, son of Shri Balbir Singh. Further, it has recorded that there was no evidence on the record to show that the owner-insured had engaged the driver after exercising due care and caution and has taken steps as required under law while engaging driver. 15. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the owner-insured has committed willful breach. Thus, the findings, recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 4 & 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 16. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant-injured at Rs. 5,000/- per month and held that the claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability and granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/, under the head =loss of dependency'. The claimant-injured has not questioned the same. Accordingly, the same is upheld. 17. Issue No. 2. 16. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant-injured at Rs. 5,000/- per month and held that the claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability and granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/, under the head =loss of dependency'. The claimant-injured has not questioned the same. Accordingly, the same is upheld. 17. The age of the claimant-injured was 35 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of =16'. 18. The multiplier of =14' is applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 488 2009 SC 3104, upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 19. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1250 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,10,000/- under the head =loss of dependency'. 20. The amount awarded under the other heads is maintained. 21. Accordingly, the claimant-injured is held entitled to total compensation under the following heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, (i) loss of dependency Rs. 2,10,000/- (ii) Medical expenses Rs. 14,000/- (iii) Attendant charges, special diet and transportation: Rs. 15,000/- (iv) Loss of income Rs. 15,000/- (v) Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 3,34,000/- 22. Now, the question is- who is to be saddled with liability. 23. As discussed hereinabove, the owner-insured has committed willful breach. The claimant is the third party. 24. It is a beaten law of the land that right of third party cannot be defeated and even if the owner-insured has committed breach, the insurer has to satisfy the award, with right of recovery. 25. Viewed thus, the insurer is saddled with the liability, with right of recovery. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insured stated at the Bar that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- stands already deposited before the Registry. 27. The insurer is at liberty to lay a motion before the Tribunal for recovery of the amount. 28. 25. Viewed thus, the insurer is saddled with the liability, with right of recovery. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insured stated at the Bar that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- stands already deposited before the Registry. 27. The insurer is at liberty to lay a motion before the Tribunal for recovery of the amount. 28. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount minus the amount already deposited by the owner-insured before the Registry within a period of eight weeks from today. 29. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification, through payees' account cheque and by depositing the same in his account. 30. The impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 31. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.