JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal is of the year 2009. It is a case of fatal accident. Appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the Award on the quantum and invalid license. 2. Accident in this case happened on 27.04.2006. Mukesh Singh, aged 29 years who was riding on a motor bike along with pillion rider Rakesh Kumar Sharma on reaching Jagatpur near Paper mill NHW Kathua was hit by the offending vehicle insured with the appellant. In that accident Mukesh Singh was seriously injured and taken to District Hospital Kathua where he succumbed to the injuries. On his death, father age not known, mother age not known, widow aged not known and one minor child aged 5 years are the claimants. 3. Based on the testimony of the eye witnesses and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that death was due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, insured with the appellant. On this plea, there appears to be no serious dispute by the Appellant-Insurance Company. The only plea taken by the counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending was not holding a valid driving license. However, that plea has been turned down by the Tribunal in answer to Issue No. 3 which reads as follows: "Issue No. 3: The onus of this issue to prove was on respondent insurer. The respondent insurer despite affording opportunities did not chose to examined even a single witness in rebuttal and as such has failed to prove the onus. Even owner and driver of offending vehicle have not been examined who could explain the circumstances as to how the accident has occurred as such adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondents. The issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the respondent insurer." In any event the owner and the driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal and in appeal also. The owner of the vehicle is reported dead by the Registry in the year 2001 and no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner on record so far. Hence the said plea cannot be entertained insofar as driving license even for the purpose of pay and recover. Therefore, the said plea is rejected. 4. Hence the said plea cannot be entertained insofar as driving license even for the purpose of pay and recover. Therefore, the said plea is rejected. 4. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the salary certificate of the deceased dated 1st May 2006, fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs. 9,359/- of which 1/3rd was deducted towards the living expenses and the balance was taken as pecuniary loss to the dependents. The Tribunal instead of adopting 17 as multiplier for the age of the deceased who was between 26-30 and in terms of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) Supreme 487 adopted 16 as multiplier and granted following amount as compensation: For loss of dependency Rs.11.97,951/- For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- For loss of consortium to widow Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,27,951/- Along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 5. On quantum, this Court does not find any justification to reduce the compensation any further for the reasons that lesser multiplier has been adopted. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the mother and the minor child. Taking all these factors into consideration the excess if any can be adjusted. There are no merits in the appeal. The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed along with interest. The Insurance Company-appellant is directed to deposit the amount with interest, if not already deposited within six weeks and the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the amount, if not already withdrawn. The appeal is dismissed.