JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M.K. Marak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The brief fact of the appellant's case in a nutshell is that: "The Respondent No.1/Claimant filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Jowai in the year 2007 for grant of compensation both for fault and no fault liability under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a total amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) in respect of death of her deceased mother who died in a Motor Accident which occurred on 28.04.2007 at 7.30 p.m. at WAHMYNSOOUP, NH 44 (Mookyndur Down) involving two vehicles viz, a coal laden truck No. AS 01-AC-1199 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the other a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. ML04 A-0894 belonging to one Shri Rimika Bamon who was arrayed as proforma opposite party No. 3 at the time of filing of the claim petition at Jowai, however the name of the said opposite party No.3 was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal at Shillong after the transfer of the aforesaid claim case from Jowai to Shillong and the said deletion was made on a prayer by the claimant. That written statement was filed by the respondent No. 2 and the appellant herein against the claim of the respondent No.1, however the respondent No. 2 did not contest the claim thereafter and the appellant thus filed an application under section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988 praying for taking the defence on behalf of the owner and driver of the vehicle insured with it and the same was allowed. The respondent No.1/Claimant examined four witnesses in support of her case and two witnesses were examined by the appellant/opposite party in the analogous case bearing MAC Case No.58/2007 which arose out of the same accident as the instant case and as such the deposition of the witnesses therein were endorsed for this case as well. In pursuance of completion of the evidence, the matter was heard and written argument was also filed by the parties which led to the passing of the judgment and order dated 29-04-2016 in MAC Case No. 49/2012 whereby the respondent No.1/claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. In pursuance of completion of the evidence, the matter was heard and written argument was also filed by the parties which led to the passing of the judgment and order dated 29-04-2016 in MAC Case No. 49/2012 whereby the respondent No.1/claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) which was to be paid within a period of 45 days from the day of judgment and an interest @ 7% per annum was also awarded to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of payment. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 29-04-2016, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on various grounds mentioned herein below: a. The driving license of the driver of the insured vehicle was fake at the time of the accident. b. The age of the deceased person was taken as 59 years instead of 68 years and the multiplier of 8 was adopted instead of 5 as provided in the Second Schedule to the M.V. Act, 1988. c. Excessive amounts under the non-pecuniary head, i.e., funeral expenses and mental shock and others were awarded. d. The income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) notional income since there was no substantial evidence of the income of the deceased person, however, the same has taken as Rs.15,000/ - (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as the income of the deceased". 3. In this instant case, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly, the income of the respondent was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, the driving licence was found to be faked as well as the age of the victim was not proved, so the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 49 of 2012 may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent submits that the award is in accordance with the M.V. Act, 1988 under the circumstances which is very much correct and reasonable. So, the appeal may be dismissed and also further submits that, if the licence is not genuine, the respondent cannot be held responsible. 5. 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent submits that the award is in accordance with the M.V. Act, 1988 under the circumstances which is very much correct and reasonable. So, the appeal may be dismissed and also further submits that, if the licence is not genuine, the respondent cannot be held responsible. 5. To answer the issues raised by the learned counsels, let me look back to the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal Court: From the evidence of C.W. 1, it appears that the claimant has exhibited the documents and besides that, she claimed that her mother used to earn Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only per month. C.W. 2 the headman of the locality submits that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and used to earn around Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only per month and the funeral expenses was borne by the victim/deceased daughter i.e. C.W. 1 and also confirmed that the death of the victim/deceased was due to the accident and there is no rebuttal notice regarding the income of the victim/deceased. C.W. 3 a school teacher produced the school certificate to prove the age of the deceased. C.W. 4 the vegetable vendor did not rebut that the victim/deceased earned Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) only per month. From the evidence of Opw. 2 LDA, Regional Transport Office, Kohima, he clearly stated that the driving licence was not issued from the Office of the DTO, Kohima. 6. So, after scanning the evidence, firstly, it is clear that due to the fatal accident, the victim/deceased died; secondly, there is no rebuttal or any dispute to say that the deceased's earning was not Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only per month, thirdly, there is also no evidence recorded that the victim/deceased had no contribution towards her daughter and her family and fourthly, if the driving licence is fake, for which the victim/deceased cannot be held responsible. Therefore, in my considered view, it is the duty of the owner of the car to check whether the driver whom he employed should not have a fake certificate. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Therefore, in my considered view, it is the duty of the owner of the car to check whether the driver whom he employed should not have a fake certificate. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others: (2004) 3 SCC 297 at Para 110 (iii) held that: "110(iii)....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 the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time". 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company: (2013) 10 SCC 217 at Para 6 has settled the dispute which is found mentioned and reproduced herein below: "6. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614 a two-Judge Bench of this Court has taken the view that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. It was further held that the wilful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. Still further it was held that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving licence from the issuing authority at the time of employment. The employer needs to only test the capacity of the driver and if after such test, he has been appointed, there cannot be any liability on the employer. The situation would be different when the employer was told that the driving licence of its employee is fake or false and yet the employer was not taking appropriate action to get the same duly verified from the issuing authority". Therefore, I find that whether the driving licence is fake or genuine is immaterial in this present case. 9. Further, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Padma Khaklari. Therefore, I find that whether the driving licence is fake or genuine is immaterial in this present case. 9. Further, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Padma Khaklari. v. Sujit Kumar Roy and others: (2004) ACJ 2826 (Gau) has stated that, even if the driver is not made a party in the claim petition, it will not affect or render the petition invalid. 10. I have also gone through the calculation adopted by the learned Tribunal and I do not find anything to discard it. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 49 of 2012. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is further directed to make the payment as per the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. 11. Before I part with the case record, I want to make it clear that any Lower Court case record transmitted to the High Court, the index as well as the paging should be done and arrange properly, thereby to avoid inconvenience while passing the judgment. 12. The Registry is directed to return the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. 13. With this observation and direction the appeal is dismissed and stands disposed of.