JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal is of the year 2010. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 04.04.2006. Deceased-Ab. Karim Dar who was a Carpenter by profession was travelling in Matadoor No. JK04-8200 driven by respondent No. 7-Showkat Ahmad S/o. Jamdad Khan owned by respondent No. 6-Akhter Ali Khan and insured with appellant-Insurance Company. The driver was driving the vehicle (Matadoor) in a rash and negligent manner due to which it turned turtle and deceased was seriously injured and he died on the spot. On his death, wife Asha aged 50, daughters aged 26 and 19 years and sons aged 25 and 22 years claimed compensation. 3. On the negligence of the driver of the vehicle (Matadoor) eye witnesses were examined and the Tribunal accepted the same and held that driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting on spot death of the deceased-Ab. Karim Dar. The said findings were in favour of the claimants. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim by stating that driver of the vehicle (Matadoor) was not holding a valid driving license, that was accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of the record produced by Regional Transport Authority who established that it was a fake driving license. The Tribunal, however, ordered that there is valid insurance covering the vehicle (Matadoor) in question, the Insurance Company, though not liable will, however, pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle who remain ex-parte. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ab. Rehman Dantoo & Ors. : JKJ Soft JKJ/17107 : 2007 (1) JKJ 23 [HC] and also on the decision of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Ors., 2004 ACC 292 SC. 5. On the above said findings, the appeal does not merit consideration, as such, liability of this stands resolved. 6. The last and the only issue of consideration is whether the quantum of compensation is excessive. On the death of 50 years' Ab. Karim Dar, said to be Carpenter by profession, his income was fixed at Rs. 5. On the above said findings, the appeal does not merit consideration, as such, liability of this stands resolved. 6. The last and the only issue of consideration is whether the quantum of compensation is excessive. On the death of 50 years' Ab. Karim Dar, said to be Carpenter by profession, his income was fixed at Rs. 300/- per day in the accident which happened in the year 2006. 7. Taking note of the prevailing skilled laborer, Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/- per month 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents comes to Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 3000 x 12 = 36,000/-) per annum. The Tribunal based on the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 adopted the multiplier of 13 and held that total pecuniary loss will be Rs. 4,68,000/-. Towards the loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- was granted, Rs. 10,000/- was granted on account of loss of love and affection to the children and Rs. 5000/- was granted for funeral expenses. In all Rs. 4,93,000/- was awarded to the claimants with interest the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till its final realization. 8. This Court does not absolutely find any justification to reduce the quantum of compensation, the income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable, Multiplier adopted is appropriate and deduction is correct, quantum is not excessive. Appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance is dismissed.