JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts a challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, Claim Petition bearing RBT MACP No. 32-K/II/14/2013, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.20,91,528/-, and, along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition, till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contested (i) the returning, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, by the learned Tribunal, issue whereof, appertains, to the relevant mishap being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.6 herein, one Munish Rai. In sequel to the afore mishap, one Sansar Chand met his end, factum whereof, stands, echoed, in, postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW5/A. The afore submission addressed before this Court, is, entirely surmisal (ii) as the only eye witness to the occurrence, who stepped into the witness box, for, lending proof qua the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash and negligent manner, of, driving of the offending motorcycle, by respondent No.6 herein, rather, in his deposition, comprised in his examination-in-chief, hence making clear bespeakings, qua respondent No.6 herein, while being atop, on, the offending motorcycle, his driving it in a rash, and, negligent manner, (iii) and, without his adequately ensuring that the deceased, who was, at the relevant stage, attempting to cross the other side, of, the road, hence not colliding, with the afore motorcycle, whereon he was atop, (iv) rather striking his person, hence, leading to his falling onto the road, (v) and, in sequel whereof, fatal injuries, stood entailed, upon, his person. The afore evidence of PW-2, borne in his examination-in-chief, stood, not concerted, to be repulsed, by the learned counsel for the insurer, by his meteing apposite suggestions to him, while his holding him, for crossexamination, (vi) suggestions whereof stood comprised, in theirs holding echoings qua his being not an ocular witness, to the occurrence, (vii) nor suggestions stood meted to him, that given the sudden appearance thereat, of, the deceased, rather respondent No.6 herein, hence his being disabled, to, appropriately maneuver the motorcycle, and, hence, it colliding against the deceased, (viii) nor his meteing any apposite suggestion to him, qua, respondent No.6 herein, not, being negligent in driving, the, offending vehicle. The absence of meteing, of, afore suggestion(s), by the learned counsel for the insurer, while holding PW-2 to cross-examination, and, conspicuously rather when a suggestion, in, the affirmative stood put to him, by the counsel, for the insurer, while holding him, to, cross-examination, with candid disclosures, therein, qua the road, at the relevant site hence being straight, (ix) thereupon, it is to be firmly concluded that, respondent No.6 herein, had a reasonable opportunity, to, sight the arrival of the deceased, onto the road, and, also could hence mete adherence, to the standards of due care, and, caution by rather slowing down the speed of the motor cycle, and, also by applying brakes thereof, whereas, he visibly omitted, to do so. Furthermore, an affirmative suggestion, stood meted, to PW-2, qua that, there being no zebra crossing, on the road, at the relevant site, and, whereon rather the deceased could take, to, trudge, whereto, also alike reply, stood evinced, (x) and, wherefrom, also it could be garnered that in the deceased, trudging elsewhere, his rather not adhering to the standards of due care, and, caution, and, also his hence contributing to the accident. Contrarily, the, meteing, of, the afore suggestion, to, the witness concerned, by the counsel for the insurer, constrains, an inference qua the insurer, being barred to rear, the afore plea in the affirmative. 3. Contrarily, the, meteing, of, the afore suggestion, to, the witness concerned, by the counsel for the insurer, constrains, an inference qua the insurer, being barred to rear, the afore plea in the affirmative. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the insurer has proceeded to contend with much vigour before this Court that (i) with respondent No.6 herein holding a learner's licence, issued by RLA Dharamshala, and, with, at the relevant time, the pillion, of, the motor cycle, hence, remaining uncontrovertedly unoccupied, by a trained instructor, (ii) whereas, the occupation of the pillion, of, the motor cycle, by a trained instructor, was statutorily mandated, for enabling, the instructor to hence control or stop the vehicle, (iii) thereupon, with the mandate of Rule 3, of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “3. General.—The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as— (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving License to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear or the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background Note.—The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters square and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom: Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motor cycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motor cycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b). hence standing infracted, (i) reiteratedly given PW-2 testifying, in his cross-examination qua the pillion of the apposite motor cycle hence remaining un-occupied by any person, thereupon, the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, hence, being rendered grossly flawed. 4. hence standing infracted, (i) reiteratedly given PW-2 testifying, in his cross-examination qua the pillion of the apposite motor cycle hence remaining un-occupied by any person, thereupon, the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, hence, being rendered grossly flawed. 4. However, the validity of the afore submission, would be determined, only when, this Court, comes to a conclusion, that, the driving licence(s), as, produced by respondent No.6 herein, before the learned tribunal, and, borne in Ex.RW1/A, and, in Ex.RW2/A, rather, as, contended by the learned counsel for the insurer, falling within, the prohibition, engrafted in Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences.—(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner’s licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle. (2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner’s licence shall permit it to be used by any other person. (3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a licensing authority having the jurisdiction referred to in sub-section (1) of section 9 from adding to the classes of vehicles which the driving licence authorises the holder to drive.” (i) whereunder a statutory interdiction, is, contemplated against a person holding, two driving licence(s), (ii) and, also this Court hence proceeding to test the validity, of, the further submission, that, the afore exhibited driving licence(s), borne, in Ex.RW2/A rather also infracting the mandate borne in Section 9, of the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “9. Grant of driving licence.—(1) Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area— (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated. for the issue to him of a driving licence. for the issue to him of a driving licence. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 1[(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence: Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that— (a) (i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle and that the period between the date of expiry of that licence and the date of the application does not exceed five years, or (ii) the applicant holds or has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued under section 18, or (iii) the applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any country outside India, subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8, (b) the applicant is not suffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a source of danger to the public; and the licensing authority may, for that purpose, require the applicant to produce a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8: Provided further that where the application is for a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle (not being a transport vehicle), the licensing authority may exempt the applicant from the test of competence to drive a vehicle prescribed under this sub-section, if the applicant possesses a driving certificate issued by any institution recognised in this behalf by the State Government.] (4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in section 12. 2[(5) Where the applicant does not pass the test, he may be permitted to re-appear for the test after a period of seven days: Provided that where the applicant does not pass the test even after three appearances, he shall not be qualified to re-appear for such test before the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of last such test.] (6) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers: Provided that a person who passed a test in driving a motor cycle with gear shall be deemed also to have passed a test in driving a motor cycle without gear. (7) When any application has been duly made to the appropriate licensing authority and the applicant has satisfied such authority of his competence to drive, the licensing authority shall issue the applicant a driving licence unless the applicant is for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence: Provided that a licensing authority may issue a driving licence to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle notwithstanding that it is not the appropriate licensing authority, if the licensing authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for the applicant’s inability to apply to the appropriate licensing authority: Provided further that the licensing authority shall not issue a new driving licence to the applicant, if he had previously held a driving licence, unless it is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for his inability to obtain a duplicate copy of his former licence. (8) If the licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, that he— (a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or (c) is a person whose licence to drive any motor vehicle has, at any time earlier, been revoked, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order refusing to issue a driving licence to such person and any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under this subsection may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority. (9) Any driving licence for driving a motor cycle in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after such commencement, be deemed to be effective for driving a motor cycle with or without gear.” wherein in clause (i) to sub section (1) thereof, a mandate stands cast, upon, a seeker of the driving licence, and, also upon the licencing authority concerned, to, ensure that the apt seeker ordinarily resides or carries business, within, the jurisdiction of the apposite licencing authority, where before, an application, is, instituted. 5. The initial submission, addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, on anvil, of, the mandate enshrined in Section 6 of the Act, wherein exists a statutory bar, against, respondent No.6 herein, to contemporaneously, holding two driving licences, and, (i) whereas, his holding a learner's driving licence, and, also his holding, the, afore exhibited licence(s), to, drive the offending vehicle, hence, mandate thereof, being infracted, rather is, frail, and, is founded, upon, a gross mis-perusal, of, the provisions of sub-section (1), of Section 6 of the Act, (i) wherein though there occurs, a, statutory bar against any person contemporaneously, holding, two driving licence(s), yet, the afore bar stands excepted, vis-a-vis, the apt learner's licence, (ii) licence whereof, respondent No.6 herein, rather held at the relevant time, along with his holding the afore exhibit(s). 6. Nowat, the submission, anvilled, upon, infraction, of, the mandate of clause (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, hence, emerging, would assume validation, upon, adduction of evidence, by the insurer, that respondent No.6 herein, at the time of its issuance, rather not ordinarily residing or carrying business, within the territorial limits, of, the licencing authority concerned, located at Agra. The afore phrase “ordinary residence or carrying of business” by respondent No.6 herein, within, the territorial limits, of, the licencing authority located at Agra, does not, on a reading of clause (i), to, subsection (1), of, Section 9 of the Act, neither carries any restricted or tramelled connotation, nor enjoins, upon, respondent No.6 herein, to, for certain specified duration of times, to hence, reside thereat, nor also prohibits, him, to temporarily hold, a, makeshift residence, within, the territorial limits, of, the licencing authority located at Agra, nor hence rather forbids respondent No.6 herein, to seek a licence, from, the licencing authority located at Agra. Conspicuously also the afore statutory provisions, do not, contemplate perpetuity, of, residence or carrying of business, by the applicant, within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the RLA concerned. Corollary thereof, upon, hence making a liberal connotation thereof, is, qua with the afore evidence, rather wanting, thereupon, it is to be concluded that at the time, of issuance, of the afore exhibits, by the licencing authority located at Agra, its seeker, respondent No.6 herein, may be temporarily residing, within, the territorial limits thereof, and, may be carrying temporary business thereat, hence, there appears, no, gross infraction, of, the mandate, of, clause (i) to sub-section(1) of Section 9, of, the Act. Consequently, the fastening, of, the indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer is both apt and tenable. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, when uncontrovertedly, after, the retirement of the deceased Sansar Chand, he was doing agency work, and, also he was an authorised agent, for collecting, small savings from the aspirants concerned, (a) yet with there being no evidence qua his earning Rs.15,000/-, per mensem, from his afore avocation, (b) consequently, the learned counsel appearing, for the insurer has contended, that, the addition of the afore income, vis-a-vis, the last drawn income, of, the deceased, from, other proven heads, by the learned tribunal, hence, being patently, flawed. The aforesaid submission, has, no vigour, as the returns filed by the deceased, before the income tax department, return(s) whereof, occur at page 159, of, the file of the learned tribunal concerned, (c) disclose, qua the deceased rather declaring his yearly business income, borne in a sum of Rs.84,952/-, from his avocation, of his collecting small savings, from, the aspirants, given his being an authorised agent. Consequently, the assessment by the learned tribunal qua the deceased rearing an income of Rs.15,000/-, from his avocation, as an authorised agent, suffers from, a, gross illegality. Consequently, the rearing of income by the deceased from his avocation as an authorised agent, is, assessed at Rs.7000/- per month. Consequently, the total income of the deceased at the time of relevant mishap computed at Rs. 23,056/-. Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, four, hence, 1/4th deduction is to be visited upon a sum of Rs.23,056/-, hence, after making aforesaid apt deduction vis-a-vis Rs.23056/-, the per mensem dependency, comes to Rs.17292/-. Consequently, the total income of the deceased at the time of relevant mishap computed at Rs. 23,056/-. Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, four, hence, 1/4th deduction is to be visited upon a sum of Rs.23,056/-, hence, after making aforesaid apt deduction vis-a-vis Rs.23056/-, the per mensem dependency, comes to Rs.17292/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.17,292/-x12=Rs.2,07,504/-. After applying the apposite multiplier of 7, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.2,07,504 x 7=Rs.14,52,528/- (Rs. Fourteen Lacs, fifty two thousand, five hundred twenty eight only). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contested, the, computation of compensation made by the learned tribunal, upon, the dependents, of, the deceased, under heads, namely, “Loss of consortium visa- vis spouse/wife”, comprised in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and under the head “Funeral charges”, a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and, under the head of “transporation Charges”, comprised in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, on anvil, of its being in conflict with the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , whereupon, hence, he contends that the learned tribunal has committed, a, gross error in assessing a sum of Rs. One lacs, under, the head “loss of consortium, to, petitioner No.1”, and, Rs.25000/-, under, the head “Funeral Expenses” and Rs.10,000/- under the head “transportation charges”. Consequently, the assessment of compensation, under, the head “funeral expenses” in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, is, reduced to Rs.15,000/-, as also the quantification of compensation, under, the head “loss of consortium, to, petitioner No.1”, and, borne in a sum of Rs. one lac, is, reduced to Rs.40,000/-, whereas, the awarding of compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- , under the head of “transportation charges” is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are held entitled to total compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs. 15,07,528/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs, seven thousand, five hundred and twenty eight only). 8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the above extent only. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,07,528/-, along with pending and future interest @7.5%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the above extent only. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,07,528/-, along with pending and future interest @7.5%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants as ordered by the learned tribunal. The insurer of the offending vehicle, appellant, herein shall indemnify the aforesaid liability of compensation. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.