JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohal Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in M.A.C.P.(R.B.T.) No.107-K/II/13/10, titled Sanjiv Kumar Versus Rimpi Kumar and others, vide which the claim petition has been allowed by learned Tribunal in the following terms:- "For the reasons recorded here in above, while discussing the aforesaid issues No.1 to 4, the present petition is hereby allowed with costs to the effect that the claimant is awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,28,597 (Rupees Two lacs twenty eight thousand five hundred and ninety seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till realization thereof, which shall be inclusive of the amount if already awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent No.3. Memo of costs be prepared and the file, after due completion be consigned to record room". 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:- Claimant Sanjiv Kumar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of injuries and disability sustained by him in an accident on 8.12.2008. According to the claimant, on 8.12.2008, he was on his way to Shahpur on his motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-39-5943. At about 8:30 p.m., when he reached near Manjhgran, a maruti car bearing registration No.HP-40A-2389, came from the opposite side, which was being driven by Mukesh Kumar Abrol (respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal) in a high speed. When the claimant saw the car, he stopped his motor cycle by the side of the road, however, Mukesh Kumar, who was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant, as a result of which claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries including multiple fracture in his right leg. The claimant was immediately taken to Shahpur hospital and from there he was shifted to Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda (Kangra). He remained admitted in the said hospital for one day and thereafter, he was taken to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot, where he remained admitted from 9.12.2008 to 21.12.2009. According to the claimant, he was working as a contractor and he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda (Kangra). He remained admitted in the said hospital for one day and thereafter, he was taken to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot, where he remained admitted from 9.12.2008 to 21.12.2009. According to the claimant, he was working as a contractor and he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Accordingly, he prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the maruti car by its driver. 3. Owner of the car Rimpi Kumar ( impleaded as respondent No.1 in the Claim Petition) contested the petition. Though he admitted that he was owner of the maruti car bearing registration No.HP-40A-2389 and the same was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (present appellant/ respondent No.3 before the learned Tribunal), however, his defence was that no accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. 4. Person driving the vehicle, by way of a separate reply also denied the allegations that the claimant had suffered injuries due to his rash and negligent driving. His defence was that he was not driving the vehicle in question and therefore, there was no occasion of him being involved in any accident. As per him, it was the claimant who was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he sustained injuries. 5. Insurance Company also contested the petition and took preliminary objection with regard to breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as also of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also raised the plea that the driver was not possessing an effective driving licence at the time of the accident, though it was not denied that as on the fateful date, the vehicle was registered with the Insurance Company. The factum of the income of the claimant being to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month was also denied. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by rash and negligent manner of driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 above is proved in affirmative to what quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to, and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by rash and negligent manner of driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 above is proved in affirmative to what quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to, and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent manner of driving of motorcycle by the claimant? OPR-2 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 5. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is the result of collusion inter-se the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2? OPR-3 7. Whether there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle? OPR-3 8. Relief". 7. On the basis of evidence led by respective parties, the issues so framed, were decided by the learned Tribunal in the following manner:- "Issue No.1: Yes. Issue No.2: Rs. 2,28,597/- from respondent No.3 with interest. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: No. Issue No.5: No. Issue No.6: No. Issue No.7: No. Relief: The petition is allowed with costs per operative part of the award". 8. Learned Tribunal held that it stood proved from the record that the accident had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving of respondent Mukesh Kumar Abrol, who was duly identified by eye-witness, PW-4 Yash Pal. Learned Tribunal also observed the fact that respondent Rimpi Kumar had admitted the ownership of the vehicle and had stated that respondent Mukesh Kumar Abrol, who was driving the car, was his friend and that Mukesh Kumar Abrol had taken the vehicle on the pretext that there was some function in his family and it was later on that he came to know that on 8.12.2008, his car had met with an accident. Learned Tribunal also held that as far as injuries suffered by the claimant were concerned, statement of PW-2 Dr. G.D. Gupta, clearly established that claimant had suffered fracture shaft of femur right with residual stiff knee and examination of the claimant by the Medical Board proved that the claimant had suffered from 10% permanent disability. 9. Learned Tribunal also held that though the claimant had pleaded his income to be Rs. G.D. Gupta, clearly established that claimant had suffered fracture shaft of femur right with residual stiff knee and examination of the claimant by the Medical Board proved that the claimant had suffered from 10% permanent disability. 9. Learned Tribunal also held that though the claimant had pleaded his income to be Rs. 12,000/- per month as a contractor, however, he had not clarified in the pleadings as to what kind of contractor-ship he used to undertake. 10. While assessing the income of the claimant, learned Tribunal relied upon the copy of the acknowledgement issued by the Income Tax Department, which demonstrated that annual gross income of the claimant from all sources for the assessment year 2008-09 was Rs. 94,580/-. On its basis, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 7,500/-. Relying upon the disability certificate Ext.PW2/A, proved by Dr. G.D. Gupta, one of the member of the Medical Board, learned Tribunal held that as the claimant had suffered 10% permanent disability, which was unlikely to improve which had reduced his working as well as earning capacity, the claimant was entitled to compensation to the tune of 10% of his monthly income by applying the formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Learned Tribunal held that 10% of the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.750/- and thus annual loss of the claimant would come to Rs. 750X12= 12,000/- per month. 11. Keeping in view the fact that age of the claimant was 33 years at the time when the accident took place, learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation on account of loss of future income to be Rs. 1,44,000/-. Besides this, learned Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs. 34,597/- in favour of the claimant on account of medical expenses as were borne out from Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 (cash memos). 12. Learned Tribunal also held that in view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, confinement to bed of the claimant from 8.12.2008 to 21.12.2008 stood justified and claimant must have spent some amount on his transportation from the spot to Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda and then to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot and from there, back to his native place. 12. Learned Tribunal also held that in view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, confinement to bed of the claimant from 8.12.2008 to 21.12.2008 stood justified and claimant must have spent some amount on his transportation from the spot to Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda and then to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot and from there, back to his native place. Learned Tribunal also held that during this period, one attendant must have remained with him and the claimant also underwent pain or trauma. Learned Tribunal thus held the claimant to be entitled to a lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of attendant charges, pain and suffering and transportation charges. Thus in all, learned Tribunal held the claimant to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,44,000+ 34,597+ 50,000= Rs. 2,28,597/-. 13. Learned Tribunal also held that it stood proved from Insurance Policy Ext.RW2/A that the vehicle in issue was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the Policy was valid from 9.12.2007 to the midnight of 8.12.2008, whereas the accident had taken place during the day time on 8.12.2008. It held that as it stood established that on the relevant day, vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner in paying the amount of compensation. 14. While answering the objection of the Insurance Company that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, learned Tribunal held that owner of the car had categorically deposed that when he gave the car to Mukesh Kumar, he had seen the driving licence of Mukesh Kumar, which was with respondent Mukesh Kumar at the relevant time. On these basis, learned Tribunal held that owner of the car had acted in a bonafide manner by believing the driving licence of respondent No.2 to be genuine and though the licence was later on proved to be fake, but for the same the owner could not be held liable. Learned Tribunal held that burden was upon the Insurance Company to plead and establish that owner was having the knowledge that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake and despite this he allowed the driver to drive the car. Learned Tribunal held that in the absence of any such specific proof and evidence, Insurance Company could not escape from its liability. Learned Tribunal held that in the absence of any such specific proof and evidence, Insurance Company could not escape from its liability. On these basis, learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner. 15. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award passed by the learned Tribunal on the following grounds:- (a) The multiplier of 16 awarded by the learned Tribunal was erroneous as it was held by the learned Tribunal in para 16 of the award that multiplier of para 15 would be applicable in the case. (b) Learned Tribunal has erred in granting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head attendant charges, pain and suffering and transportation charges, which amount was on the higher side. (c) Learned Tribunal had erred in not appreciating that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner because as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not having a valid Registration Certificate. (d) That the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that as the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date when the accident took place, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been burdened with the claim amount by the learned Tribunal. 17. No other point was urged. 18. I deal with all these points raised by the learned counsel one by one. (a) The multiplier of 16 awarded by the learned Tribunal was erroneous as it was held by the learned Tribunal in para 16 of the award that multiplier of para 15 would be applicable in the case:- 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a perusal of para 15 of the award would demonstrate that learned Tribunal despite coming to the conclusion that in the facts of the case multiplier of 15 would be applicable, erred in granting compensation to the claimant by applying the multiplier of 16. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused para 16 of the award under challenge, in my considered view, this plea of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 21. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused para 16 of the award under challenge, in my considered view, this plea of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 21. The multiplier which has to be awarded in such like cases where the age of the victim is 16 years, has been clearly spelled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . As per the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case, the claimant was entitled to the multiplier of 16. It appears to me that in para 15 of the award there appears to be a typographical error in the award, wherein "multiplier of 15" has been wrongly typed instead of "multiplier of 16". In para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), in the chart appended thereto, in column 4 against the age group of 31 to 35 years, multiplier of 16 is mentioned. In para 42 of the same judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the table in para 40 thereof. In this view of matter, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 and there is no error in said finding returned by the learned Tribunal. (b) Learned Tribunal has erred in granting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head attendant charges, pain and suffering and transportation charges, which amount was on the higher side:- 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant on account of attendant charges, pain and suffering and transportation charges, is on the higher side and the claimant in fact is not entitled to anything above Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- as the claimant has not placed any material on record to substantiate that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under these heads. 23. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- as the claimant has not placed any material on record to substantiate that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under these heads. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ claimant has argued that the amount so awarded by the learned Tribunal was a reasonable amount and the same by no stretch of imagination could be termed to be on the higher side because this amount stood awarded by the learned Tribunal under three headings i.e. attendant charges, pain and sufferings and transportation charges. 24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, in my considered view, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under three heading I.e. transportation charges, attendant charges and pain and sufferings, can be said to be on the excessive side. 25. Undoubtedly, as is borne out from the record, as a result of the accident, the claimant/ respondent has suffered 10% permanent disability. It is clearly borne out from the record that an amount of approximately Rs. 35,000/- was ordered to be reimbursed to him on account of medical expenses. It has been proved on record that after the accident, the claimant was taken to the Hospital at Shahpur in district Kangra, from where he was shifted to Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda. After remaining admitted in Tanda hospital for one day, he was shifted to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot, where he remained admitted from 8.12.2008 to 21.12.2008. The injuries which have been suffered by the claimant are grievous injuries and the same have been duly proved by PW-2 Dr. G.D. 26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lambard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) ACJ 1020, in a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of a disability sustained by the claimant therein as a result of a motor accident in which the claimant therein had suffered from temporary disability, inter alia ordered compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards trauma, pain and sufferings. 27. Similarly, in Mallikarjun Versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of motor vehicle accident where a child had suffered disability, held as under:- "12. 27. Similarly, in Mallikarjun Versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of motor vehicle accident where a child had suffered disability, held as under:- "12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10 per cent and up to 30 per cent to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 per cent, Rs.4,00,000; up to 90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per cent, it should be Rs.6,00,000. For permanent disability up to 10 per cent, it should be Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick". 28. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited hereinabove also, it cannot be said that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant under the headings i.e. attendant charges, pain and sufferings and transportation charges, can be said to be excessive. In my considered view, the amount so awarded by the learned Tribunal keeping in view the fact that the claimant suffered grievous injuries and has been left permanently disabled to the extent of 10%, is a reasonable amount and the same calls for no interference. (c) Learned Tribunal had erred in not appreciating that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner because as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not having valid Registration Certificate:- 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned award is further not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that as the vehicle which was insured by the present appellant was not having a valid Registration Certificate as on the date when the accident took place, the Insurance Company was not liable to be compensated. 30. Record demonstrates that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in issue was not renewed after the expiry of statutory period of 15 years and the owner of the vehicle had also not paid any tax after 2006. 30. Record demonstrates that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in issue was not renewed after the expiry of statutory period of 15 years and the owner of the vehicle had also not paid any tax after 2006. However, the fact of the matter is that despite these facts, the Insurance Company undertook the Insurance of the vehicle w.e.f. 9.12.2007 upto the midnight of 8.12.2008 after charging premium from the owner of the car. As has also been held by the learned Tribunal, there is no material placed on record by the appellant/ Insurance Company to demonstrate that the vehicle in issue was not fit to be plied on the road or that the accident took place due to the unfitness of the car in question. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal that in the absence of any evidence that the vehicle was either unfit to be plied on road or the accident took place due to the unfitness of the vehicle in issue, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to indemnify the owner. 31. Appellant company has also not been able to prove that the vehicle which was a private car was being used for any purpose other than for which it could have been used as per the Registration Certificate. Even otherwise, in my considered view, the onus was also upon the Insurance Company to have had satisfied itself when it undertook the insurance of the vehicle either by way of renewal or otherwise from 9.12.2007 onwards, that the vehicle was possessing a valid Registration Certificate. At the time of charging premium, none of these things are taken into consideration by the Insurance Company, but when it comes to indemnifying the insured then all such like pleas are raised by the insurer to defeat the claim of the insured, which cannot be permitted. 32. In view of the above discussion, this plea of the appellant is also rejected. (d) That the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that as the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date when the accident took place, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been burdened with the claim amount by the learned Tribunal:- 33. (d) That the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that as the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date when the accident took place, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been burdened with the claim amount by the learned Tribunal:- 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby it has held the Insurance Company to be liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has argued that it is apparent from the record that Mukesh Kumar Abrol, who was driving the car at the time when the accident took place, was not possessing a valid driving licence. He has argued that RW-3 Jatinder Sharma, Junior Assistant from the office of D.T.O. Jalandhar, placed on record Ext.RX, copy of the driving licence of respondent Mukesh Kumar which revealed that licence No.R3586 was not in the name of Mukesh Kumar Abrol, but was issued in the name of one Naveen Chawla son of Sham Dass Chawla, resident 55/75, Green Model Town, Jalandhar and it was valid upto 18.5.2014 for scooter and car. On these basis he has argued that as it stood proved on record that the driver was not possessing a valid licence as on the date when the accident took place, learned Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner in paying the amount of compensation. 34. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the factum of the driver possessing a fake licence was not in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle and this has categorically come in the statement of the owner of the vehicle that he had seen the licence before handing over the car to the driver and as at the relevant time, the licence shown to the owner was in the name of respondent Mukesh Kumar, nothing more was to be inquired into by the owner of the vehicle as the same clearly demonstrated that the owner of the vehicle acted prudently before handing over his car to respondent Mukesh Kumar. 35. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 35. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the licence of respondent of Mukesh Kumar Abrol was bearing No.R3586 and the Junior Assistant from the office of D.T.O. Jalandhar i.e. the place from where the licence was issued, has proved that the said licence was not issued in the name of Mukesh Kumar, but was issued in the name of Naveen Kumar Chawla son of Sham Dass Chawla. Now in this background, what has to be seen is as to whether the owner of the car was aware of the fact that the person to whom he was handing over the car was not possessing a valid driving licence at the relevant time or not? 36. It is not in dispute that respondent Mukesh Kumar, to whom the vehicle was given by owner i.e. respondent Rimpi Kumar, was his friend and there was no relation of driver and employer between Mukesh Kumar and Rimpi Kumar. It has come in the statement of Rimpi Kumar that before he gave the car for being driven to Mukesh Kumar, he had seen his licence. This he stated so in a suggestion so put to him in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the claimant. 37. Hon'ble Supreme Court in titled as Ram Chandra Singh Versus Rajaram and others, (2018) 8 SCC 799 has held that insurer would be absolved if owner was aware that the licence was fake, yet it permitted the driver to drive the vehicle. To be more specific, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the said judgment has held as under:- "11. Suffice it to observe that it is well established that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. Indubitably, the High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the driving licence was found to be fake, but that concession by itself was not sufficient to absolve the insurer" 38. In this case there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the owner was aware that the licence possessed by respondent Mukesh Kumar was a fake licence. In this case there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the owner was aware that the licence possessed by respondent Mukesh Kumar was a fake licence. This fact has come on record only after deposition of RW-3 Jatinder Kumar, Junior Assistant from the office of D.T.O. Jalandhar. 39. A perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal also demonstrates that the learned Tribunal has categorically held that burden was upon the Insurance Company to have had specifically pleaded and proved, as also established that the owner was having knowledge that the driving licence produced by respondent Mukesh Kumar was fake, yet despite this fact he allowed respondent Mukesh Kumar to drive this car and in the absence of any specific proof and evidence in this regard, Insurance Company could not escape from its liability. 40. In my considered view, findings so returned by the learned Tribunal are inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, refer to hereinabove and therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in paying the compensation. 41. In view of my findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.