JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals for enhancement of compensation by claimants-Mariyam & Anr. and by the Insurance Company disputing its liability to pay compensation have been filed pertaining to accident, which took place on 08.09.1993. Three claim applications came to be filed seeking compensation, one by Smt. Mariyam & Anr., second by Smt. Suman & Ors. and third by Rikhab Chand & Ors. Though all the three applications for compensation have been decided by separate awards dated 24.10.2000 in the case of Smt. Mariyam & Anr., 25.09.2000 in the case of Rikhab Chand & Ors. and 20.10.2000 in the case of Smt. Suman & Ors., the findings regarding liability of the appellant-Insurance Company are same and, therefore, all these appeals were heard and are being decided together. 2. Applications for compensation were filed by the claimants with the averments that on 08.09.1993, Mohd. Aslam was driving Car No. HRU-4042, in which Rakesh and Vinod were travelling as passengers. When the Car reached on highway near Lambiya, one Trailer No. HR29/C-5121, which was being driven rashly and negligently, struck Truck No. PB10/F-9331 and the Car, resulting in death of Mohd. Aslam, Rakesh and Vinod on the spot. 3. It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck as well as the Trailer. 4. Replies to the applications were filed by the Insurance Companies of the Truck as well as Trailer. It was, inter alia, claimed by the Insurance Company that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car himself and/or the respective opposing vehicle i.e. Trailer or Truck and, therefore, the Insurance Companies were not liable to make payment of compensation. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that the driver of the Truck was not in possession of valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Trailer and the Truck and that the Car driver was not negligent in driving. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Trailer and the Truck and that the Car driver was not negligent in driving. While considering the issue pertaining to the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, it was noticed that evidence was produced on record to show that the driving licence of driver of the Truck-Kuldeep Singh was fake. However, the Tribunal relying on judgment in National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ishru Devi, 1999 (1) ACJ 615, came to the conclusion that as the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove that the owner was aware that the licence was fake when he handed over the vehicle to the driver, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability and, consequently, rejected the plea raised by the appellant. 7. The Tribunal held the owners of the Trailer and Truck as well as the Insurance Companies as jointly and severally liable for making payment of amount of compensation, as the nature of accident was result of negligence of the two drivers. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that after rejection of the stay application, the respective Insurance Companies have made payment of 50% of the award to the claimants. 9. In so far as the case of Mariyam & Anr. is concerned, the application pertained to seeking compensation for death of driver of the Car Mohd. Aslam, it was claimed that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and after spending Rs. 500/- as personal expenses, used to contribute Rs. 2,500/- per month towards the family. Based on the said submissions compensation was sought. 10. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the deceased used to earn Rs. 650/- per month as a skilled labour, his age was 20 years and keeping in view the future prospects, the income was taken at Rs. 1,200/-, on the said amount ?rd was deducted towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 12, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- to each claimant towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,200/-. 11. 1,200/-, on the said amount ?rd was deducted towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 12, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- to each claimant towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,200/-. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meagre compensation to the appellants-claimants, inasmuch as, despite oral evidence of the appellants on record regarding the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, the income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 650/- per month. 12. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal also committed error in applying multiplier of 12 only while taking into consideration the age of the appellants-claimants, which is contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation. It was prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced adequately. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants for enhancement submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company despite evidence available on record regarding the licence being fake, cannot be sustained. 14. It was submitted that the owner and driver of the Truck remained ex-parte and there was no evidence available on record to indicate that when the vehicle was handed over by the owner to the driver, he ensured that he was in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the finding in this regard recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 , has emphasized the requirement of driver being in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded is adequate and the same does not call for any interference. 16. 15. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded is adequate and the same does not call for any interference. 16. Further submissions were made that so far as the applicability of multiplier in case of an unmarried person is concerned, the compensation has to be assessed based on the age of claimants/parents and not on the basis of age of the deceased and submitted that in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 , the principle in this regard has been laid down. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer of the Trailer also made submissions that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and the same does not call for any interference. 18. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents supported the judgments impugned regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants-Mariyam & Anr. is concerned, pertaining to death of Mohd. Aslam, their son is concerned, the age of the deceased as 20 years is not in dispute, inasmuch as, the claimants have produced a copy of his driving licence along with the endorsement of the RTO, wherein date of birth of Mohd. Aslam has been indicated as 12.09.1973 and as the date of accident is 08.09.1993, the age of the deceased was indeed 20 years. Pertaining to the income of the deceased, the aspect about the deceased being driver is not in dispute as the accident occurred while the deceased was driving the vehicle owned by Sunil Kumar. 21. In the statement, AW-1-Shafi Mohd, father of the deceased stated that his son used to earn Rs. 100/- per day and used to spend Rs. 500/- per month on himself and contribute Rs. 2,500/- towards the family. In cross-examination, except for the status of his driving licence, no question was put to him regarding the quantum of income though it was admitted by the father that his son was not engaged permanently. AW-2-Smt. Mariyam, mother of the deceased also appeared in the witness-box and stated that her son used to earn Rs. 2,500/- towards the family. In cross-examination, except for the status of his driving licence, no question was put to him regarding the quantum of income though it was admitted by the father that his son was not engaged permanently. AW-2-Smt. Mariyam, mother of the deceased also appeared in the witness-box and stated that her son used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 100/- per day. She stated that her son used to work regularly and used to go out of station for 8-10 days and used to do the driving work only. 22. From the above oral evidence available on record and the nature of cross-examination, which has been done, the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs. 650/- per month by the Tribunal, by taking the minimum wages for a skilled labour prevalent at that time cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is required to assess the income of the deceased not by taking the easy way out by assessing the same, based on the minimum wages, irrespective of the nature of evidence available on record. The nature of work being undertaken by the deceased i.e. driving and the strata, to which he belonged, it was not expected of the parents to produce proof pertaining to the income of the deceased, that also about Rs. 100/- per day only. However, in view of the fact that both the parents indicated the income of the deceased at Rs. 100/- per day and also admitted that he was not regularly engaged, but was involved in the work of driving most of the time. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 2,000/- per month. 23. So far as the applicability of multiplier in the present case is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance on judgment of Trilok Chandra (supra), however, the subsequent judgments, though of smaller benches have consistently, even after noticing the judgment in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) has held that multiplier based on the age of the deceased must be applied. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 , judgment in the case of Trilok Chand (supra) was cited, however, it was laid down as under:- "15. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 , judgment in the case of Trilok Chand (supra) was cited, however, it was laid down as under:- "15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 24. Recently in the case of Kempiah & Ors. v. S.S. Murthy & Anr., 2017 DNJ (SC) 484 as well as Chikkamma & Anr. v. Parvathamma & Anr., 2017 DNJ (SC) 486 also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the age of the deceased even in case, where the deceased was unmarried has to be taken into consideration. Based on the said aspect of the matter and the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , a multiplier of 18 needs to be adopted in the present case and as the deceased was unmarried, the amount for personal expenses needs to be deducted by half. 25. So far as the addition of amount based on future prospects is concerned, the issue regarding applicability of said head to a self-employed person is pending consideration before the larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, as in the present case, the claimants themselves have accepted that the deceased was not regularly employed, the case of grant of compensation for future prospects is not made out. 26. In view thereof, for loss of income, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000-1,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 2,16,000/-. 27. So far as the award of amount under the head of loss of love & affection is concerned, the same also deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- to each of the parents. The claimants would be further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application i.e. 07.12.1993. 28. Coming to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company regarding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in making payment of amount of compensation. 25,000/- to each of the parents. The claimants would be further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application i.e. 07.12.1993. 28. Coming to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company regarding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in making payment of amount of compensation. In reply to the application for compensation, though initially the Insurance Company did not take any plea regarding the licence, where after the reply was amended and a plea was taken that the driver of the Truck Kuldeep Singh was not in possession of valid driving licence, based on which, the Tribunal framed issue No. 8. 29. So far as the evidence in this regard, regarding the licence being fake is concerned, the statement of RTA, Central Zone, Hyderabad, on interrogatories sent under provisions of Order 26, Rule 4 CPC was obtained, the said authority, in its response to the interrogatories, indicated about the licence No. K/15115/88 that the same was not issued by his office. 30. A bare look the licence (Ex.-12), indicates as if the same was issued by the Licensing Authority at Hyderabad and subsequently the same was renewed for the period 20.07.1991 to 19.07.1994. 31. In view of the fact that the Licensing Authority in its statement on interrogatories, indicated that the licence No. K/15115 of 1988 was not issued by his office, there is no doubt that the licence in question apparently was a fake licence, the fact that the same was subsequently renewed in the year 1991, does not in any manner validate the said licence. 32. So far as the issue of liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, on account of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle being fake is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), has laid down the following:- "110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:- (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where-for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not full-fill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case." (Emphasis Supplied) In the above judgment, the judgment in the case of Lehru (supra) was also taken into consideration reiterating the requirement of the driver to be in possession of a valid driving licence. 33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh (supra) laid down that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 34. In the present case, the owner and driver of the Truck, regarding which, the allegations about the licence being fake has been made, did not appear before the Tribunal. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that once the owner fails to appear in the witness-box and it is found that the licence is fake, the burden as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) about the proof by the Insurance Company regarding the insured being guilty of negligence and having failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy has to be presumed, cannot be accepted as a sound proposition in all cases. 35. The Tribunal, by its judgments impugned, came to the conclusion that from a bare look at the licence, it cannot be deciphered that the licence in question was fake and based on the said finding, it came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the insured was guilty of negligence so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. 36. The Tribunal, by its judgments impugned, came to the conclusion that from a bare look at the licence, it cannot be deciphered that the licence in question was fake and based on the said finding, it came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the insured was guilty of negligence so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. 36. Having gone through the nature of the licence, copy whereof has been produced as Ex.-12, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be without any basis as apparently the document in question full-fills all the parameters of a valid driving licence and therefore the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted. 37. In view thereof, based on the principles laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), it cannot be said that merely on account of the finding that the licence in question was fake, the appellant-Insurance Company can seek exoneration from its liability. 38. In view of the above discussion, while the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants-Mariyam & Anr. is partly allowed. The claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,66,000/- instead of Rs. 1,40,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 39. The appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent-United India Ins. Co. Ltd. would be required to make payment of the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,25,800/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 07.12.1993 jointly and severally along with the owner of both the offending vehicles - Truck and Trailer. 40. The amount of compensation be paid equally to the appellants-claimants by the Insurance Companies in their Saving Bank Account within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.