JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. The appellant herein is the original claimant, who has preferred the present appeal being dissatisfied by judgment and award dated 14th September, 2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Porbandar. Amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,076/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realisation in respect of the accidental injury suffered by the claimant. 2. While awarding the compensation as above, the Tribunal exonerated respondent No. 3 ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and the amount was awarded to be recovered from the other opponents. 3. The accident took place on 18.12.2007 at around 9 a.m.. The appellant was driving his rikshaw bearing registration No. GJ-10-U-9795. He was going from village Bhad to village Bantva, Taluka Porbandar. According to his case, he was proceeding at a moderate speed and his rikshaw was on the left side of the road. When he reached near the road going from village Kadega to village Farer, opponent No. 1 driving his matador bearing No. GJ-11-Y-5044 came from behind and dashed the rikshaw from the hind side. It was claimed that the matador was driven with excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner. The accident resulted into sufferance into bodily injury in the nature of fracture in the left leg of the claimant who was shifted to civil hospital, Bantva, later taken to a hospital at Porbandar for further treatment where he was treated as an indoor patient and was also operated. Despite the treatment, as per the case of the claimant, the injury left him with permanent disablement in the body. 3.1 In the claim petition it was the case of the claimant for getting compensation that he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month from occupation of driving and was maintaining his family. He was aged 23 years at the relevant point of time. He claimed compensation under the various heads including Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of prospective income, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and nutritional diet, Rs. 10,000/- for pain shock and sufferings, Rs. 9,000/- against loss of income and Rs. 7,000/- towards attendant charges and other expenses. He was aged 23 years at the relevant point of time. He claimed compensation under the various heads including Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of prospective income, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and nutritional diet, Rs. 10,000/- for pain shock and sufferings, Rs. 9,000/- against loss of income and Rs. 7,000/- towards attendant charges and other expenses. 3.2 On the aspect of contributory negligence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the matador was negligent to the extent of 70% whereas 30% negligence was attributable to the claimant rikshaw driver. It adopted figure of Rs. 3000/- towards monthly income of the claimant. Though the claimant had stated his age to be 23 years, the Tribunal viewed that the medical certificate was suggestive of age of the claimant to be 27 years. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 on the basis of the disability certificate given by the Orthopaedic surgeon (Exh. 43), the Tribunal concluded that the claimant was suffering from 10% disability. On the basis of the above figure, amount of Rs. 85,822/- was arrived at in considering the 30% negligence attributed to the claimant, Rs. 60,076/- was actually awarded as compensation with interest as above. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. M/. Dave for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the third respondent insurance company. The first and second respondents were served with the rule of this court. However, none appeared on their behalf. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in as much as the multiplier was not properly adopted. His harping submission was that an error was committed by the Tribunal in exonerating the insurance company which was on the ground that the opponent No. 1-the driver of the matador was not holding a valid licence. He submitted that the order entirely exonerating the insurance company and not entitling the claimant to recover the compensation from the insurance company was not in consonance with law. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahamooda and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others [ (2004) 13 SCC 684 ]. Also pressed into service the other decision of the Supreme Court Mahamood P v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2006) ACJ 2825] as well as in Ramnarayan & Ors. v. Dalpatsingh & Ors. [(2007) ACJ 212]. Ltd. And Others [ (2004) 13 SCC 684 ]. Also pressed into service the other decision of the Supreme Court Mahamood P v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2006) ACJ 2825] as well as in Ramnarayan & Ors. v. Dalpatsingh & Ors. [(2007) ACJ 212]. Yet another decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh [(2004) GLH 1691] was relied on. On the basis of all the above submissions, it was submitted that the court may allow the appeal and modify the impugned order. 4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the insurance company supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. It was submitted that the driver of the matador was not holding the licence, the Tribunal justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability. Learned advocate relied on decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 250 ] and from paragraph No. 11 thereof, it was submitted that in the said case, since the vehicle was used as taxi, it was a commercial vehicle and the driver was required to hold licence, but at the relevant time, the driver was holding the licence for light motor vehicle only and did not possess licence to drive the commercial vehicle. It was held that there was a breach of condition and that the appellant could raise a defence on that score. Another decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal [ (2008) 1 SCC 696 ] was put forth in reliance, to submit that in absence of a valid driving licence, compensation was not liable to be claimed from the insurance company. In particular, paragraph No. 43 of the said judgment was relied on. 5. The court considered the facts of the case and the material on record in the context of the submissions made by both the sides and also went through the impugned judgment and award. The court also considered the relevant evidence from the record. On going through the facts and evidence on record, no error was found to have been committed by the Tribunal when it took monthly income of Rs. 3000/-. Also on count of assessment of physical disability to the extent of 10%, no fault could be attached. The court also considered the relevant evidence from the record. On going through the facts and evidence on record, no error was found to have been committed by the Tribunal when it took monthly income of Rs. 3000/-. Also on count of assessment of physical disability to the extent of 10%, no fault could be attached. The medical certificate indicated the disability by virtue of the accidental injury at 20%, but the said injury for the body as a whole was assessed at 10%. The claimant in his deposition (Exh. 27) stated that he had no objection if his disability is considered to the extent of 10%. In this view, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in assessing and taking 10% disability. However, one of the error committed by Tribunal was with regard to adoption of multiplier. Even if the say of the claimant about his age being 23 years is not to be believed and the age is taken to be of 27 years as the Tribunal has taken, the application of multiplier 15 by the Tribunal is erroneous. As laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], correspondent to the age of 27 years, the multiplier, which is to be properly applied would be 17. 5.1 In view of the above discussion as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it has to be determined with reference to multiplier of 17 instead of 15. Therefore taking income of Rs. 03,000/- per month, considering 10% disability, it would be Rs. 300 multiply 12 which would be equal to Rs. 3,600/-multiply by multiplier 17, the amount would come to Rs. 61,200/-. Therefore, this would be the amount towards prospective loss of income for the appellant considering his disability. Amount of Rs. 20,000/- is required to be paid to him towards medical expenses and nutritional diet as claimed by him. It would be reasonable to accept the case of the appellant for this amount under this head. Similarly, Rs. 10,000/-deserves to be awarded towards pain, shock and sufferings; Rs. 06,000/- is to be awarded for loss of actual income for a period of two months and Rs. 07,000/- towards attendant charges and other expenses. This would make total amount of Rs. 1,04,200/- [Rs. 61,200 + Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 7000 + Rs. 6000]. Similarly, Rs. 10,000/-deserves to be awarded towards pain, shock and sufferings; Rs. 06,000/- is to be awarded for loss of actual income for a period of two months and Rs. 07,000/- towards attendant charges and other expenses. This would make total amount of Rs. 1,04,200/- [Rs. 61,200 + Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 7000 + Rs. 6000]. Therefrom, 30% amount is required to be deducted inasmuch appellant rickshaw driver adjudged contributory negligence by the Tribunal which finding is also not liable to be interfered with. Therefore, total amount minus 30% that is Rs. 31,260/- and that would bring the final figure of Rs. 72,940/-. This would be the total compensation which the appellant would be entitled to with 9% interest. 6. Another clear error on part of the Tribunal to exonerate the insurance company from satisfying the compensation awarded and further by not entitling the claimant to recover the compensation from the insurance company. While finding that the driver of the matador did not have the proper licence, and that there is a breach of condition of police under section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal committed an error by not providing in the award that the claimant ought to have been permitted to recover the compensation from the insurance company, notwithstanding the position as above. 6.1 In Swaran Singh (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 110 made the following observations, "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 in surance 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) An 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. (ii) An 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 insure d for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of t he 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, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore 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 b reach 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 insured 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 insured under section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner ha s taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learners licence, the in surance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the in surer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claim s and disputes inter se between the insurer and insure d in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provide d in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims." 6.2 Even in decision in Kusum Rai (supra), which was sought to be relied on behalf of the insurance company, though the Supreme Court held that the driver not holding a valid licence could be a defence for the insurance company, the insurance company could not have been absolved from the liability, and declining interference and provided that the insurance company-the appellant in that case may subsequently recover the compensation amount paid to the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle. The law is well settled on this score. 6.3 S. Iyypan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2013) 7 SCC 62 ], was a case there was an accident between a taxi and cycle and the taxi driver had licence to driver light motor vehicle. The question considered was whether driving taxi which was a commercial vehicle can be termed as breach of insurance policy and whether the insurer was liable. The court held that the insurer could not disown its liability on the ground that driver was not holding a valid licence. The question considered was whether driving taxi which was a commercial vehicle can be termed as breach of insurance policy and whether the insurer was liable. The court held that the insurer could not disown its liability on the ground that driver was not holding a valid licence. Summarising it was observed in S. Iyypan (supra) "Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy." (para-18) 6.4 The above position of law requires modification in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, while awarding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 72,940/- (rounded as Rs. 73,000/-) as proper compensation to the appellant, it is to be required that the insurance company satisfies the said amount by paying the same to the appellant to subsequently recover in accordance with law from the other opponents. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the insurance company cannot be entirely absolve from its liability to pay the compensation. 7. As a result of the above discussion, adopting multiplier of 17 and awarding amounts under different heads as per the above discussion, the appellant-claimant becomes entitled to compensation of Rs. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the insurance company cannot be entirely absolve from its liability to pay the compensation. 7. As a result of the above discussion, adopting multiplier of 17 and awarding amounts under different heads as per the above discussion, the appellant-claimant becomes entitled to compensation of Rs. 72,940/- (rounded as Rs. 73,000/-). It is further declared that the insurance company shall be liable to pay the said amount to the appellant in the first instance, whereafter it may recover the same from the other opponents in accordance with law. The impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stands modified accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount awarded by this judgment as above from the insurance company directly, with clarification as above. Record and proceedings shall be sent back immediately.