JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since both the appeals have been directed against the common Judgment and Award dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T. Giridih, in Claim Case No. 35 of 2005, hence both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited contesting the order of pay and recovery made by the Tribunal and also challenging the quantum of compensation/award to the claimants both on the ground that the same being excessive and also on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident that took place on 06.09.2004. 4. On the other hand, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2011 has been filed by the claimants for enhancing the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal erred by not awarding for funeral expenses and awarding interest only from the date of judgment in spite of awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. The brief facts of these cases is that on 06.09.2004, the deceased-Ibran Ali, a boy of aged about 7 years studying in class-II was standing by the side of the road near his maternal grandparents’ house. The Yamaha Libero Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 11-B 7852 being rashly and negligently driven dashed him causing him grievous injury and the said Ibran Ali succumbed to the injuries on the same day of the accident. In connection with the said occurrence Bengabad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2004 was instituted and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the motorcycle namely Sunil Gurum. Both the owner and the insurer insurance company of the said motorcycle appeared in the tribunal and contested the claim petition. The owner of the motorcycle being the opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition denied any rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle at the time of accident and also pleaded that the said motorcycle was insured with the opposite party No. 2-United India Insurance Company. The opposite party No. 2 pleaded that the deceased minor boy, was having contributory negligence in the said accident and further pleaded that Sunil Gurum, who was driving the said vehicle did not have any valid and effective driving licence. The opposite party No. 2 pleaded that the deceased minor boy, was having contributory negligence in the said accident and further pleaded that Sunil Gurum, who was driving the said vehicle did not have any valid and effective driving licence. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues:- (i) Is the application of the claimants maintainable? (ii) Whether the claimants got valid cause of action for the present claim? (iii) Whether the death of Late Ibran Ali caused due to grievous injuries arising out of the use of Yamaha Libero Motorcycle no. JH 11-B 7852 on 6.9.04 at 16.30 P.M. on road in village Balgo, P.S. Bengabad District-Giridih? (iv) Whether the deceased was a student of class II, aged about 7 years? (v) Whether O.P. No. 1 owner possessed all the vehicular documents such as driving licence, permit etc. as required u/s. 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, 1988? (vi) Whether the applicants are entitled for claim? If so, from whom and to what extent? 6. In support of its case the claimant altogether examined three witnesses namely CW-1 Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ansari the claimant, CW-2 Idrish Mian and CW-3 Rafiq Ansari both eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Besides the oral testimony, the claimants also proved the following documents which were marked exhibits as under:- Ext. 1 and 1(a) C.C. of orders passed in Bengabad P.S. Case No. 90/04. Ext. 2 C.C. of F.I.R. Ext. 3 C.C. of charge-sheet. Ext. 4 C.C. of P.M. report. Ext. 5 Photo copy of R.C. Book. Ext. 6 Photo copy of Insurance Policy. 7. The opposite party No. 1 did not adduce any evidence but the opposite party No. 2- Insurance Company examined one of its investigators namely Ranvir Kumar as OPW No. 1 and also proved the following documents:- Ext. A C.C. of the Insurance Policy. Ext. B Written statement of driver Sunil Gurum. Ext. C Owner Book. Ext. D Insurance policy. 8. The learned court below after considering the evidences both oral and documentary in the record, arrived at a finding that the deceased-Ibran Ali died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 11-B 7852 on 06.09.2004 and the deceased was aged about 7 years at the time of accident and he was studying in class-II. The Tribunal also arrived at a finding that the driver Sunil Gurum was driving the said vehicle and he was not having any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal considered notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- and applying the multiplier 15 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment and award and directed the opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company will pay the compensation amount but they have the right to recover the said amount paid by the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle by initiating a proceeding before the executing court and for that the insurance company may not file a separate suit. 9. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 who is also the respondent No. 2 of the Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2011 submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashutosh Anand submits that since the deceased was aged about 7 years and he was left alone by his parents to be on road. Hence, it is submitted that he has contributed to the accident. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 that the learned court below erred by awarding compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- when a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sabitri Lohar & Others vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Another, 2009 (4) JLJR 627 granted compensation amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- in a case where the deceased was working as a labourer and was aged about 22 years. It is further submitted that the learned tribunal erred by passing the order of pay and recovery after it arriving at the conclusion in the impugned judgment itself that the driver of the motorcycle was not having any valid driving licence. In this regard, Mr. Ashutosh Anand relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. In this regard, Mr. Ashutosh Anand relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , paragraph-84 of which reads as under:- “............In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability......” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 that the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 11. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2011 submits that the learned Tribunal failed to grant the compensation under the conventional head of funeral expenses and relied upon the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, 2017 (4) JLJR 275 (SC) held in para-61 which reads as under: “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 12. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2011 submits that the claimants be awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the conventional head of funeral expenses besides the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. It is further submitted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition also. It is further submitted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall that in this case, the opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company has neither pleaded specifically nor proved that the opposite party No. 1-the owner of the vehicle was conscious of the fact that the driver Sunil Gurum was not having any valid licence and in the absence of any pleading in this respect put forth by the respondent/ opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal to pay and recover order. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2011 and respondent No. 3 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 defends the impugned judgment and award so far as it relates to the order of pay and recovery and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 whose paragraph-19 reads as under:- “19. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was comprehensively insured by Respondent 2 (insurance company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd. to sub-serve the ends of justice, the insurer (Respondent 2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) in accordance with law.” 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after perusal of the record, the following points for determination emerge for consideration in these appeals:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was proper in passing the order of pay and recovery? (ii) Whether the deceased has contributory negligence in the accident? (iii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is proper? (iv) Whether the Tribunal erred by not awarding interest from the date of institution of the claim application? 15. So far as the first point of determination is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to avoid its liability the insurer must plead that the owner of the vehicle was conscious of the fact that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and knowing that fully well he permitted the vehicle to be driven by the driver concerned. After carefully going through the record I find that there is neither pleading nor any proof that the opposite party No. 1 the owner of the vehicle was conscious of the fact that the driver-Sunil Gurum was not having any valid driving licence at the time of accident and that being conscious of the same he allowed the driver to drive his motorcycle. In this backdrop in view of the principles of law settled in the case of Pappu (supra), I do not find any fault with the Tribunal in directing pay and recovery of the awarded amount to the Insurance Company. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 16. So far as the second point for determination regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased is concerned, after going through the record, I do not find any evidence to the effect that the deceased was standing in the middle of the road or that he has done anything which resulted in his accident. The CW-2 Idrish Mian and CW-3 Rafiq Ansari who are the only eye-witnesses of the occurrence examined in this case, have categorically stated about the accident and nothing has come in their testimonies to suggest that the deceased has contributed in any manner in the said accident. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the parents of the deceased did not accompany a boy of age 7 years who was studying in class-II while he was standing by the side of the road can no way be termed as contributory negligence because ordinarily in this part of the country it is common knowledge that the students of class-II walk to school without being accompanied by their parents. Hence, I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2011 as the evidence in the record does not suggest that the deceased in any manner contributed to his said accident and the Tribunal has rightly held so. Hence, this point for determination is answered in the negative. 17. Now, coming to the points for determination Nos. 3 and 4 regarding the quantum of compensation and interest from the date of institution of the claim application are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manju Devi and Another vs. Musafir Paswan and Another, 2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 (SC) has in a case involving the death of a 13 years of a boy has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by considering his income to be Rs. 15,000/- by observing as under in paragraphs-2 and 3 which read as under:- “2. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. 2,25,000/- in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by considering his income to be Rs. 15,000/- by observing as under in paragraphs-2 and 3 which read as under:- “2. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 A.C.J. 831 : (1996) 2 T.A.C. 286 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. 3. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. Keeping in view that these applications are under Section 163 A, the claimants are also entitled to funeral expenses under the conventional head of Rs. 15,000/- as has been held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is a settled principle of law that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amresh Kumari vs. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain, (2015) 4 SCC 433 , where in paragraph- 2 it has been held as under:- “2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question whether interest on the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant is to be awarded from the date of the award or from the date of the filing of the claim petition came up for consideration before this Court in Mohinder Kaur vs. Hira Nand Sindhi, (2015) 4 SCC 434 , to which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a party, it was held that the claimant was entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Following the said decision, we hold that the appellant would be entitled to simple interest @ 9 per cent, as awarded by the learned Single Judge, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11-8-1986.” (Emphasis Supplied) No specific reason was assigned by the Tribunal in awarding interest from the date of the judgment/award. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that in this case the simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application be awarded to the claimants-appellants of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2011. The points for determination Nos. 3 and 4 are answered accordingly. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the following extent:- The opposite party No. 2 of original claim application namely United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- that is Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest thereon from the date of filing of the application to the claimants-appellants of Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2011, less any amount already paid, in equal proportion to each of the two claimants within three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this judgment. The Insurance Company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the same terms as directed by the learned tribunal. 20. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 21. Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount if any, deposited, by the appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited in Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2011, on the Insurance Company producing proof of payment of the awarded amount to the claimants as modified by this judgment. 22. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.