JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. These are the three appeals arising out of a common judgment/award dated 20th May, 2014, involving same accident, having been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch. All the claim petitions have been allowed. In all the three appeals, the appellant has challenged the aforesaid judgment/award. 2. In the memo of appeals, it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CIMA No. 524/2014), respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (in CIMA No. 523/2014) and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in CIMA No. 522/2014) filed the claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch, (in brevity, the MACT) for grant of compensation on account of death of Shr. Ghulam Hussain in CIMA No. 524/2014; Shr. Mohd. Rashied in CIMA No. 523/2014; and Shri Mir Hussain in CIMA No. 522/2014, who died in road traffic accident, which happened on 15th February, 2007 travelling in the Vehicle/Tata Mobile bearing Registration No. JK01H-7321 while going from Murrah to Surankote. 3. The respondents namely, Mian Bashir Ahmed and Abdul Hameed being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were also impleaded as respondents in the claim petitions filed by the aforesaid respondents before the MACT, Poonch along with appellant-company being the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant-company after service, filed objections to the claim petitions by taking various defences available to it. The appellant-company, in its objections to the claim petitions, has specifically pleaded that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy terms and conditions and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, the appellant-company was not liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The respondents namely, Mian Bashir Ahmed and Abdul Hameed, i.e., the owner and driver of the offending vehicle despite their service, chose not to appear and contest the claim petitions and, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. It was only the appellant-company, which contested the aforesaid claim petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CIMA No. 524/2014), respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (in CIMA No. 523/2014) and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in (CIMA No. 522/2014) and cross-examined all the witnesses produced by the claimants on all the defences including those, which are available to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 5. 1 and 2 (in CIMA No. 524/2014), respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (in CIMA No. 523/2014) and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in (CIMA No. 522/2014) and cross-examined all the witnesses produced by the claimants on all the defences including those, which are available to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The MACT, Poonch vide its composite judgment dated 20th May, 2014 rejected the defences raised by the appellant-company and passed the awards of Rs. 3.82 lac along with interest @7.5% p.a. (in Claim No. 08/2010); Rs. 11,12,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. (in Claim No. 10/2010); and Rs. 6.58 lac along with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. in (Claim No. 11/2010) favour of the respondents/claimants and against the appellant-company. The appellant-company being aggrieved of the aforesaid composite judgment has challenged its legality, validity and correctness of these awards on the following amongst other grounds:- (i) The judgment/award impugned is ex-facie bad, contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. (ii) Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a load carrier. As per the contents of the FIR, the deceased while travelling in the load carrier bearing Registration No. JK01H-7321 were proceeding from Murrah to Surankote. When the offending vehicle reached at Khet Galli, the driver while negotiating a sharp curve lost control over the vehicle, which fell into deep gorge, resulting in the death of the deceased , namely, Ghulam Hussain along with some other persons, travelling in the vehicle. Further, as per the averments made in the claim petitions, the professions of the deceased have been shown as Agriculturist, Auto Mobile Mechanic with shop of spare parts and Carpenter. Therefore, the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, the risk of whom was neither required to be covered nor was covered under the policy in question. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal, holding the appellant-company liable for the satisfaction of the awarded amount is wholly illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law. (iii) The perusal of the copy of the Registration Certificate of the aforesaid vehicle will show that the offending vehicle was a load carrier. Similarly, the vehicle was insured under Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy. (iii) The perusal of the copy of the Registration Certificate of the aforesaid vehicle will show that the offending vehicle was a load carrier. Similarly, the vehicle was insured under Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy. The claimants also in their claim petitions have admitted that the offending vehicle was a lad carrier (private) with seating capacity 4+1 double seater. Therefore, the travelling of the deceased in the insured vehicle was in total violation of the policy terms and conditions and no direction for satisfaction of the awarded amounts could have been passed against the appellant-company. The impugned awards are, therefore, bad in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside. (iv) Though the insurance policy covered the risk of five employees of the insured, but as submitted above, the perusal of the averments made in the claim petitions shows that the deceased being private employees were not the employees of the insured owner and, therefore, the risk of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy. Thus, the Insurance Company had no liability to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. The impugned awards are, therefore, liable to be set aside. (v) In view of the admitted facts, as are evident from the claim petitions and the documents enclosed therewith that the offending vehicle was a load carrier and the deceased were travelling as a gratuitous passengers therein, no evidence on the point of law was required to be led by the respondent-company and the issue of gratuitous passengers was required to be decided in view of the facts admitted by the claimants and the position of law. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal below holding the appellant-company liable for the satisfaction of the awarded amount is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. (vi) It is admitted position of law that the insurance policy is a contract between insurer and the insured and both the parties are governed by its terms and conditions. It is not denied that the insured vehicle was a Goods Carrying Vehicle, 1988. Further, it is submitted that under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle is not required to be covered under the policy in question. It is not denied that the insured vehicle was a Goods Carrying Vehicle, 1988. Further, it is submitted that under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle is not required to be covered under the policy in question. No evidence to rebut the policy in question was led by the claimants or the owners of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal below was bound to rely upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hold that the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy in question. Therefore, it being a clear case of violation of policy terms and conditions and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, no liability of satisfying the awarded amount could have been fastened upon the appellant-company. Thus, the awarded amount being wholly illegal is liable to be set aside. (vii) The three different awards passed by the MACT, Poonch are very excessive and do not conform to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts of the country and the same, therefore, deserve to be set aside. (viii) The Tribunal below erred in assessing the monthly of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain, Shri Mohd. Rashied and Shri Mir Hussain as Rs. 4500/-, Rs. 9600/- and Rs. 6,000/-. No documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased or that of their professions has been brought on record by the claimants before the Tribunal below. The assessment of the aforesaid income of the deceased, thus, being without any evidence is required to be set aside. Thus, the awards based on wrongly assessed income of the deceased are erroneous in law and deserves to be set aside. (ix) The Tribunal below erred in fixing the dependency in the cases. Admittedly, the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shri Mohd. Rashied were more than 65 years of age, at the time of accident. There was no evidence that the respondent No. 2, namely, Abdul Azia and (in CIMA No. 224/2014) and respondent No. 2, namely, Basharat Ali (in CIMA No. 23/2014) were dependant upon the income of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shr. Mohd. Rashied. Therefore, the dependency in the cases was required to be fixed after making 50% deduction. There was no evidence that the respondent No. 2, namely, Abdul Azia and (in CIMA No. 224/2014) and respondent No. 2, namely, Basharat Ali (in CIMA No. 23/2014) were dependant upon the income of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shr. Mohd. Rashied. Therefore, the dependency in the cases was required to be fixed after making 50% deduction. The Tribunal, however, made ?rd deduction to fix the dependency in the case, which is totally erroneous and against the settled proposition of law. The impugned awards on this score are also bad in the eye of law and the same deserve to be set aside. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 7, which is on the higher side and against the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in selecting the appropriate multiplier. The multiplier in the case was required to be fixed by taking the age of the deceased more than 65 years. Thus, The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 7 in the cases, which is not only on the higher side, but against the settled law and on this score also, the award is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. (x) Insofar as the deceased, namely, Shri Mir Hussain is concerned, he was more than 55 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11, which is on the higher side and against the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in selecting the appropriate multiplier. The multiplier in the case was required to be fixed by taking the age of the deceased more than 55 years, which was further required to be scaled down on account of uncertainties of life. Thus, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 in the case, which is not only on the higher side, but against the settled law and on this score also, the award is bad in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside. (xi) The award of Rs. 1.00 lac for consortium to widow of the deceased is excessive and is, thus, bad in the eye of law. As such, the same is required to be set aside. 6. (xi) The award of Rs. 1.00 lac for consortium to widow of the deceased is excessive and is, thus, bad in the eye of law. As such, the same is required to be set aside. 6. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents/claimants, stating therein that the claimants/respondents herein filed the claim petitions before the MACT, Poonch in the year 2010 and the appellants filed their objections before the Tribunal and in para-6 of their preliminary objections, the claim of the respondents was admitted by the appellant and as such, these CIMAs require to be dismissed; that the appellant admitted in his appeal that the Insurance Company has received the premium for five employees of the insured and, as such, the appeals require to be dismissed. That after filing of the claim petitions, three issues were framed before the Tribunal and the appellant did not produce any witness in order to prove issue and the appellant cannot raise fresh issues before this Hon'ble Court. That the claimants are widow and the minor children and unnecessarily being dragged into litigation by the Insurance Company, as the Insurance Company has failed to make out a case in their favour before the Tribunal. As such, these CIMAs require to be dismissed. That the Tribunal has passed reasonable Awards and the multiplier is also at lower side. Hence, the CIMAs filed by the Insurance Company are required to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that on 15th February, 2007 at about 11.15 A.M at Khet Gali near village Murrah, Surankote, a road accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. JK01H-7231, thereby causing death of the aforesaid deceased persons. The appellant-Insurance Company herein has appeared and filed objections before the MACT. The respondents therein, i.e., the owner and the driver also appeared, but respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were set ex-parte on 27th September, 2010 and 11th March, 2013 respectively. After pleadings were complete, the Court below framed four issues. Issue No. 1 was common except the name of the deceased, whereas other issues, i.e., issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were common in all the claim petitions. 2 and 3 were set ex-parte on 27th September, 2010 and 11th March, 2013 respectively. After pleadings were complete, the Court below framed four issues. Issue No. 1 was common except the name of the deceased, whereas other issues, i.e., issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were common in all the claim petitions. Parties led their evidence and after conclusion, the Trial Court passed a common Award, which is impugned in these appeals. It is worthwhile to mention here that the accident and death of the deceased persons were not denied by the Insurance Company. During the trial, issue No. 1 was proved in affirmative in favour of the claimants and thereafter, issue No. 2 was also held proved by the Court below and the Court below after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled, “Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported as AIR 2009(3) Supreme 487 has passed the award amounts as mentioned in judgment/award . 8. The law is very much clear that Insurance Company cannot challenge the award on question of quantum, unless it is perverse in nature. First ground taken is that the offending vehicle was a load carrier and deceased persons while travelling in the load carrier bearing Registration No. JK01H-7321, therefore deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, the risk of whom was neither required to be covered nor was covered under the policy in question. 9. I have gone through the judgment and record of court below. From perusal of record, it reveals that neither specific objection to this effect was taken by Company before court below nor any specific such issue was framed. Company has only taken specific objection that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid effective licence at the time of accident. Appellant was required to take specific defence/objection in this regard before court below in objections. A general defence taken that vehicle was being driven in violation of insurance policy would not be enough; further appellant was required to ask the Court to frame such issue, which company has also failed to do so. When a party to litigation asks a Court to give judgment on certain facts, then burden lies on that party to prove that facts, before court. When a party to litigation asks a Court to give judgment on certain facts, then burden lies on that party to prove that facts, before court. In present case, appellant has neither produced any evidence nor proved the policy of vehicle in question. 10. In this way, this issue cannot be raised first time before appellate court. Even issue with regard to non possessing of valid and effective licence by driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident has not been proved. Because as already held appellant has neither produced any evidence nor proved the policy of vehicle in question. 11. Another ground taken is that insurance policy covered the risk of five employees of the insured, but the perusal of the averments made in the claim petitions shows that the deceased being private employees were not the employees of the insured owner and, therefore, the risk of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy. No such objection has been taken and further this ground is pertaining to facts; insurance company has not produced any witness. So this ground is also not tenable. 12. Further ground taken that Tribunal below erred in assessing the monthly of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain, Shri Mohd. Rashied and Shri Mir Hussain as Rs. 4500/-, Rs. 7800/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively. No documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased or that of their professions has been brought on record by the claimants before the Tribunal below. This ground is also not tenable because, there is evidence to this fact that Shri Ghulam Hussain, Shri Mohd. Rashied and Shri Mir Hussain were earning as Rs. 4500/-pm (Rs. 54000/ per year), Rs. 7800/- pm (Rs. 93,600 per year) and Rs. 6,000/- pm (Rs. 72,000/- per year). There is un-rebutted evidence, because company has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. 13. Further ground taken that Tribunal below erred in fixing the dependency in the case on the ground that deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shri Mohd. Rashied were more than 65 years of age, at the time of accident; that there was no evidence that the respondent No. 2, namely, Abdul Aziz (in CIMA No. 524/2014) and respondent No. 2, namely, Basharat Ali (in CIMA No. 523/2014) were dependent upon the income of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shr. Mohd. Rashied were more than 65 years of age, at the time of accident; that there was no evidence that the respondent No. 2, namely, Abdul Aziz (in CIMA No. 524/2014) and respondent No. 2, namely, Basharat Ali (in CIMA No. 523/2014) were dependent upon the income of the deceased, namely, Shri Ghulam Hussain and Shr. Mohd. Rashied; that therefore, the dependency in the cases was required to be fixed after making 50% deduction; however, tribunal made ?rd deduction to fix the dependency in the case, which is totally erroneous and against the settled proposition of law. 14. I have also gone through the award and pleadings to this effect; I have also gone through the award and law on the subject. After going through the law enumerated in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (3) Supreme 487 , I do not find any infirmity of law in this regard. 15. Further ground taken that the award of Rs. 1.00 lac for consortium to widow of the deceased is excessive and is liable to set aside. This ground is also not tenable, in view of law relied by Court below in case titled Rajesh and others v Raj Bir Singh and Others reported in 2013(3) SCC 817. 16. There is no perversity in award passed by court below. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, theses appeals are dismissed as award/judgment of MACT Poonch does not suffer from any infirmity of law. Copy of judgment be placed in each file. The Award amount deposited be released in favour of claimants under law.