JUDGMENT Mr. Sudhir Mittal, J.:- An accident took place on 17.04.1995, which resulted in the death ofSukha @ Sukhpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sukha’) and one Sant Ram.Sukha was employed as a Cleaner on Truck No. PB-13-C-5000 whereas Sant Ramwas driver of truck No. CHW-7156. Sukha alongwith the driver of Truck No. PB-13-C-5000, namely, Roda s/o Lachhman Singh had gone to Shakti Stone Crusher,Chandi Mandir for loading concrete stones. However, the material was notavailable, therefore, they returned from Chandi Mandir. On the way back, therewas a long que of vehicles at Chawla Petrol Pump and Truck No. CHW-7156 wasalso part of that que. Its driver, Sant Ram, was standing near bumper of the truck.Sukha alighted from his own truck to request Sant Ram to move his vehicle slightlyso as to enable Sukha’s truck to pass. Meanwhile, a canter bearing No. HR-03-8924came from Pinjore side. It was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash andnegligent manner and it struck the front portion of Truck No. CHW-7156, whereafterit ran over Sukha. As a result of this accident, Sukha died on the spot whereas SantRam received injuries and later died on 28.09.1995. 2. Two claim petitions were filed; one by parents of Sukha and the otherby his wife and three minor children of Sant Ram. Vide the impugned award dated15.12.1998, the parents of Sukha were granted a compensation of Rs.59,000/-whereas the legal heirs of Sant Ram were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on account of injuries sustained by said Sant Ram, after returning a findingthat there was no evidence to connect the death of Sant Ram with the accident. 3. The present two appeals have been filed by the parents of Sukha andNational Insurance Company Limited viz. FAO Nos. 557 and 615 of 1999,respectively, one claiming enhancement of compensation and the other challengingits liability to pay compensation. Both these appeals are being decided by a commonjudgment as they arise out of the same accident resulting in passing of the impugnedaward. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rashand negligent driving of Mangat Ram-respondent No. 3 is not being challenged ineither of the appeals and, therefore, the said finding is affirmed. FAO No. 615 of 1999 4. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rashand negligent driving of Mangat Ram-respondent No. 3 is not being challenged ineither of the appeals and, therefore, the said finding is affirmed. FAO No. 615 of 1999 4. The Insurance Company challenges its liability to pay compensation onthe ground that the driver of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘Canter’)did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Reference has beenmade to the statement of RW-2 Mohinder Singh, Junior Assistant of TransportAuthority, Ferozepur and RW-3 Ramesh Chand, Clerk of Licencing Authority,Hoshiarpur. RW-2 Mohinder Singh deposed that at Serial No. 28779 of 1990, thereis no entry of any licence issued to Mangat Ram-respondent No. 3. Similarly, RW-3Ramesh Chand stated that no licence bearing No. 23452/92-93 was issued in favourof said Mangat Ram. This evidence came in the background that Mangat Ram haddeposed that his driving licence was lying in the judicial file of the criminal casewhich was relatable to District Transport Office, Ferozepur. On a later date, heappeared and produced a driving licence Ex. R-1 relating to District TransportOffice, Hoshiarpur. It has come on record from the evidence of RW-3 that licenceEx. R-1 was renewed by the Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur from 26.09.1995 to25.09.1998. The owner of the offending vehicle viz. M/s Dhillon Kool DrinksPrivate Limited–respondent 4 did not produce any evidence on its behalf i.e. norepresentative of the company entered the witness box. 5. In view of the above evidence, it is strenuously contended on behalf ofthe appellant-Insurance Company that the Canter was being driven by a person whodid not hold a valid driving licence. Even the owner of the Canter has not cared tostep into the witness box to make a statement that he had employed Mangat Ram asdriver after examining his driving licence. The evidence on record also shows thatthe renewal of Ex. R1 took place only on 26.09.1995 i.e. 5 months after the date ofthe accident. It is, thus, argued that Mangat Ram did not hold valid driving licenceon the date of accident. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has not been able to rebut thearguments made on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company. 7. It is clear from the evidence on record that Mangat Ram was not a licensed driver since the driving licence possessed by him had not been issued by aCompetent Authority. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has not been able to rebut thearguments made on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company. 7. It is clear from the evidence on record that Mangat Ram was not a licensed driver since the driving licence possessed by him had not been issued by aCompetent Authority. It is evident that the licences possessed by Mangat Ram werefake. Even Ex. R1 can not save Mangat Ram-respondent No. 3 because the saidlicence was renewed only on 26.09.1995 i.e. 5 months after the accident. Theevidence suggests that Ex. R1 had expired on the date of the accident and therenewal is obviously beyond a period of 30 days from the date of expiry. 8. The appeal of the Insurance Company thus succeeds. However, in viewof the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of NationalInsurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the InsuranceCompany would be liable to pay the amount of compensation and subsequentlyrecover the same from respondents No. 3 and 4, whose liability shall be joint andseveral. FAO No. 557 of 1999 9. This appeal has been filed by the parents of deceased Sukha forenhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. It is not in dispute that deceased Sukha was 19 years old and wasunmarried on the date of the accident. He was working as a Cleaner on Truck No.PB-13-C-5000. The learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.1800/-which is not being challenged by the respondent–Insurance Company. The learnedTribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.59,000/- only. Although none hasappeared on behalf of the claimants, the compensation granted by the learnedTribunal is awfully inadequate and the same desires to be enhanced in view of thereasons given herein-after. 11. From the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma andothers vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(6) SCC 121 and Rajeshand others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 170,it follows thatdependency of 50% has to be granted in view of the death of a bachelor. Amultiplier of 18 is to be applied since the deceased was of 19 years of age on the dateof accident. Enhancement of 50% on account of future prospects is also required tobe granted. Thus, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:- 1. Amultiplier of 18 is to be applied since the deceased was of 19 years of age on the dateof accident. Enhancement of 50% on account of future prospects is also required tobe granted. Thus, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:- 1. Annual income @ Rs. 1800/- per month Rs. 21,600/-(1800x12) 2. Increase of 50% in income on account of future prospects Rs. 32,400/-(21600+10800) 3. Deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses Rs. 16,200/-(32400-16200) 4. Annual dependency after applying multiplier of 18 asdeceased was 19 years of age Rs. 2,91,600/-(16200x18) 5. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 8. Total Compensation Rs. 4,66,600/- 12. The enhanced amount of compensation will carry an interest @ 7.5%p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment. The respondent– Insurance company is directed to make payment before the learned Tribunal withina period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.It is further clarified that the compensation amount shall be recoverable fromrespondents No. 1 and 2, whose liability would be joint and several. 13. The appeals are, thus, allowed in the above-stated terms.