JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 99 of 2009 dated 30.11.2012, vide which the claim petition filed before learned Tribunal by respondent No. 1/ claimant stood allowed in the following terms:- "As a sequel to my findings on the above issues, this petition is allowed and accordingly, the petitioner is granted total compensation of Rs.2, 05, 000/- along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization including the compensation, if any, awarded u/s 140 of the Act. The aforesaid amount is liable to be paid by respondent No.2, being owner and respondent No. 3, being driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. As mentioned above, respondent No. 1, the insurer, cannot be issued direction to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation and then to recover it from respondents No. 2 and 3. Memo of costs be prepared. File, after its due completion, be consigned to record room." 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that as per the case of respondent No. 1/ claimant, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, deceased Tikkam Dass son of the claimant was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-0879 on 30.08.2009 from Taklech to Nogli in District Shimla which vehicle was boarded by him after watching schools tournament. At around 06.30 P.M. when the vehicle reached at a place near Khanortu, on Taklech road, it met with an accident, as a result of which, Tikkam Dass died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thereafter, FIR No. 168/2009 was registered on 30.08.2009 at Police Station Rampur Bushahr. As per the claimant, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the person driving the vehicle i.e. Janardan. The vehicle was owned by Shobha Ram (present appellant) which was insured with IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Company. At the time of death of the deceased, his age was 16 years and he was undergoing his studies in Government High School, Bhrawali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, in 8th Class and was having a bright future. On these basis, the claimant filed claim petition praying for compensation to the tune of Rupees Ten Lac on account of untimely death of Tikkam Dass in the accident. On these basis, the claimant filed claim petition praying for compensation to the tune of Rupees Ten Lac on account of untimely death of Tikkam Dass in the accident. 3. Insurance Company contested the claim petition inter alia on the ground of its maintainability including the factum of the driver not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Even the factum of deceased dying as a result of the accident was denied alongwith other contentions raised by the claimant. 4. Owner of the vehicle i.e. present appellant and driver thereof, filed a joint reply in which the stand on merit taken by them was that the deceased had hired the vehicle to carry his luggage and goods from Taklech to Nogli alongwith other occupants, on contributory basis. The occurrence of the accident on account of rash and negligent driving was disputed. As per them, the accident took place due to sudden mechanical defect, which had developed in the vehicle. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether late Sh. Tikkam Dass had died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-06A0879, being driven by respondent No. 3, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-1 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effected driving licence at the relevant time? OPR-1 5. Whether the driver and owner of the offending vehicle had allowed the passengers to travel in it beyond its capacity, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-1 6. Relief. 6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before learned Tribunal, following findings were returned to the issues so framed:- Issue No. 1 : Yes. Issue No. 2 : Rs. 2,05, 000/- from respondents No. 2 & 3. Issue No. 3 : Yes. Issue No. 4 : Yes. Issue No. 5 : Yes accordingly. Relief. : Petition allowed as per operative portion of the award. 7. Issue No. 2 : Rs. 2,05, 000/- from respondents No. 2 & 3. Issue No. 3 : Yes. Issue No. 4 : Yes. Issue No. 5 : Yes accordingly. Relief. : Petition allowed as per operative portion of the award. 7. Learned Tribunal while holding that Tikkam Dass had died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-06A-0879 driven by its driver Janardan, also held that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. While deciding Issues No. 3 and 5, learned Tribunal disbelieved the version of the present appellant that the deceased was allowed to travel in the vehicle as a passenger on account of luggage and goods of the deceased being transported in the offending vehicle from Taklech to Nogli alongwith other occupants. Learned Tribunal held that the records demonstrated that the deceased had boarded the vehicle from Taklech to Nogli alongwith other persons after having watched a school tournament and in fact it was not even the case of the claimant that the deceased had hired the vehicle alongwith other occupants in order to carry his luggage/goods. Learned Tribunal also took note of the statement of RW-5 Yashoda Prashad who had brought the record pertaining to the criminal case registered against Janardan and who stated that no goods were found to be carried in the vehicle and, that for this reason, no seizure memo was prepared when the case was investigated. On these basis, it was held by learned Tribunal that as it was not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident was a commercial vehicle meant for carrying goods and as the same was not engaged by the deceased for carrying of his goods, therefore, the same left no place for doubt on record that as the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle, the passengers could not have been carried in the same except owner(s) of the goods or their representatives. Learned Tribunal also held that even the statements of RW-1 Shobha Ram (present appellant) and driver Janardan (RW-3) did not establish that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in his capacity as owner of goods which were being transported in the same. 9. Learned Tribunal also held that even the statements of RW-1 Shobha Ram (present appellant) and driver Janardan (RW-3) did not establish that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in his capacity as owner of goods which were being transported in the same. 9. Learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 4 also held that the driver of the vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence and in fact, the licence being possessed by the driver at the time of the occurrence of the accident was not even a genuine licence. It held that the vehicle was being driven by the driver in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned Tribunal also held that on the basis of evidence on record it was inclined to hold that the claimant had succeeded in proving that at the time of his death, deceased was having notional income of Rs.15, 000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of the said amount, learned Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency to Rs.10, 000/-. It applied the the multiplier of 18 by placing reliance upon the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and another Vs. D.T.C. and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and held that the total loss of dependency came to Rs.1, 80, 000/-. It also awarded an amount of Rs.25, 000/- as funeral expenses. It further held that the amount was liable to be paid by the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle has filed this appeal. 11. The award inter alia stands assailed on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that Tikkam Dass had died on account of injuries received in the accident due to rash and negligent driving and further the findings returned by learned Tribunal that though the driver was not possessing a valid licence were incorrect findings and liability if any ought to have been fastened upon the insurance company. 12. No other point was urged. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as award passed by learned Tribunal. 14. 12. No other point was urged. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as award passed by learned Tribunal. 14. A perusal of the record demonstrates that besides Tikkam Dass there were other persons also travelling in the vehicle namely Roshan Lal and Sandeep, who also died as a result of the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Janardan. Though it has come in the statement of Janardan who entered the witness box as RW-3 that the accident occurred on account of sudden mechanical defect but the records demonstrate that no mechanic was examined either by the owner or by the driver to substantiate this plea that the accident took place on account of mechanical defect. Incidentally, when the driver and owner of the vehicle have not denied the occurrence of the accident or the death of the deceased in the accident, then the appellant cannot be permitted to assail the award on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Tikkam Dass died on account of the accident involving the vehicle of the present appellant. The factum that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is evident from the fact that the vehicle had gone out of the road and fell into deep khad as has been taken note by learned Tribunal in Para-11 of the award. In the absence of any material being on record to substantiate that the accident took place due to mechanical defect, in my view the principle of res ipsa loquitur becomes applicable in the peculiar facts of the case and the only inference which can be drawn from the facts is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Janardan. 15. In view of above, in my considered view, there is no infirmity in the findings returned by learned Tribunal that the death of the deceased had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Janardan. 16. As far as the findings returned by learned Tribunal to the effect that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms of the insurance policy are concerned, the same are also duly borne out from the records of the case. 16. As far as the findings returned by learned Tribunal to the effect that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms of the insurance policy are concerned, the same are also duly borne out from the records of the case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the vehicle in issue was a goods carriage vehicle. There is no evidence adduced on record by the appellant from which it can be inferred that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as owner of goods which were being transported in the same. In fact, this stand of the appellant stands completely belied by the statement of RW-5, as has rightly been taken note by learned Tribunal. As far as findings returned by learned Tribunal to the effect that Janardan was not possessing a valid driving licence are concerned, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant could not point out from the records as to how the findings returned to this effect are either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. Relevant Paras of the award which dealt with the issue of licence are quoted herein below:- "Sh. Rakesh Verma (R.W.2) , the Manager of the Company, stated that the vehicle had been insured by their Company as goods/commercial vehicle. When the information, regarding the accident of the vehicle, was obtained by the Company, the documents regarding the same, including the driving licence of the driver, were also supplied by its owner (Shobha Ram) . On having seen the driving licence, he felt necessity to get it verified and thus, sought information, in this regard, under the provisions of Right to Information Act. In this regard, letter, which had been made/sent, is Ext. RW-2/D and the report issued thereto, Ext. RW2/C. As per this report, the driving licence was reported to be fake one. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the driver of the vehicle (Janardan) was having a driving licence issued by R.T.O., Agra which was for LTV but further explained that it was found to be fake. He denied to have got procured documents Ext. RW-2/C and Ext. RW-2/D falsely. Sh. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the driver of the vehicle (Janardan) was having a driving licence issued by R.T.O., Agra which was for LTV but further explained that it was found to be fake. He denied to have got procured documents Ext. RW-2/C and Ext. RW-2/D falsely. Sh. J.P. Aggarwal (R.W.4) Principal Assistant in the Office of R.T.O., Agra stated from the summoned record, pertaining to driving licence No. 18021/Ag/05, that as per their record, it had been issued, in the name of Prashant Jain son of Sh. R.K. Jain, 33/32 Adarshnagar Colony, Rakab Ganj, Agra, on 29-11- 2005. This licence was issued for motorcycle and LMV. He further stated that Ext. RW-2/C had been issued by their office in response to Ext. RW-2/D. As per the record of their office, licence No. 18021/Ag/05 had not been issued, in the name of Janardan, on 29- 11-2005. Ext. RW-4/A is copy of the original licence No. 18021/05 which is correct as per their record. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Ext. RW-1/F has been issued by R.T.O., Agra. He denied that from the original register which he has brought, the photograph pasted therein can easily be taken out/detached. He expressed his ignorance that in Govt. and non-Govt. offices, the registers are printed. Self stated that in their office, the registers are not printed. He admitted that in the driving licence 18021/ Ag/05, there is a stamp which is unclear. The original record, which has been brought by him, is not in his hand. He denied that entries in the register, brought by him, are in the same pen and ink. He denied that on licence No. 18021/Ag/05, the stamp is unclear for the reason that it was got entered later on." 17. A perusal of the said paras demonstrate that learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and returned its findings as to why the licencee possessed by the driver was a fake licence. I have minutely gone through the evidence and these findings are clearly borne out from the records. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince the Court to the contrary. 18. No arguments were addressed on quantum of award. 19. In view of the above, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince the Court to the contrary. 18. No arguments were addressed on quantum of award. 19. In view of the above, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stand vacated. C.O. No. 31 of 2014: 20. In view of above discussion, as no arguments were raised on quantum by either of the sides, these objections are dismissed as otherwise this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the award passed by learned Tribunal as far as assessment of quantum is concerned, which is based on evidence on record.