JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by fastening liability to pay the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims TribunalI, Mandi, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. 2 Respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants, who are the widow, children and mother of the deceased Parvez Akhter, filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on the ground that on 30.3.2008 at about 9.20 P.M., deceased Parvez Akhter was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-31-A-2302 and when he was going from Naulakha to Kanaid on NH21, one Swaraj Mazda Truck bearing registration No. HP-31-B-0234 being driven by respondent No.6, Manoj Kumar, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle of deceased, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased, who later on succumbed to the same. 3 Respondents No. 5 and 6, who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle, filed joint reply and denied that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. It was averred that it was the driver of the motorcycle who himself was negligent and respondent No.5 had engaged respondent No.6 as driver of the vehicle after satisfying himself regarding validity and veracity of his driving licence. 4 The appellant-Insurance Company contested the petition by filing separate reply, wherein preliminary objections regarding the driver of the truck not having valid and effecting driving licence, vehicle being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy etc. were raised. On merits, factual contentions were denied for want of knowledge. 5 On 4.3.2011, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether Pravez Akhtar had died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing No. HP-31-B-0234 on 30.3.2008? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.3 was driving said vehicle on said date in rash and negligent manner which led to the accident? OPR 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/, if so from whom? OPP 4. Whether the driver was driving the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act,if so its effect? OPP 5. Whether respondent No.3 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, if so its effect? OPR 6. OPP 4. Whether the driver was driving the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act,if so its effect? OPP 5. Whether respondent No.3 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, if so its effect? OPR 6. Whether the deceased had died due to contributing negligence, if so what is its effect? OPR 7. Relief. 6 After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 23.8.2013 allowed the claim petition and held the claimants to be entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,63,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the amount before the Tribunal from the respondents jointly and severally, however the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company being the insurer. 7 It is vehemently argued by Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sarswati, Advocate, that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration and thereafter decide the question regarding driver of the vehicle being possessed of two driving licenses, which is not permissible under the law. 8 It would be noticed that the learned Tribunal has recorded specific findings to the effect that the driver of the vehicle was having two driving licenses as would be evident from para 15 of the impugned award, which reads as under: “15. Driver Manoj Kumar appeared as RW3 and deposed that his licence is Ext. RW3/A and he is driving the vehicle for about 12 years and his owner has checked his licence prior to keeping him as driver on his vehicle and he is competent to drive the vehicle and his licence is valid for transport vehicle. Police has taken into possession his licence Ext. RW1/C and he further stated he was having licence, Ext. RW3/A. Licence, Ext. RW3/A was obtained by him in the year 2004-05 and after giving the driving test, he has obtained the driving licence, Ext. RW3/A for driving transport vehicle. It was issued earlier from Gohar and later on it was renewed in the year 2005-06. He has admitted that he could drive the transport vehicle with licence Ext. RW1/C and he deposed that he does not know whether a person can obtain two licenses. It is denied that he has purchased the licence, Ext. RW3/A for driving transport vehicle. It was issued earlier from Gohar and later on it was renewed in the year 2005-06. He has admitted that he could drive the transport vehicle with licence Ext. RW1/C and he deposed that he does not know whether a person can obtain two licenses. It is denied that he has purchased the licence, Ext. RW3/A.” 9 However, despite having reached to a conclusion that the driver was possessed of two driving licences, the liability was still fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company by answering issues No. 4 and 5 in negative. 10 Now, the moot question is whether a driver can possess more than one driving licence. 11 This issue was considered by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Justice V.K. Gupta, Chief Justice as his Lordship the then was) in National Insurance Company vs. Nant Ram and ors., 2005(1) Shim.L.C. 226 , wherein the Court was dealing with a case, where the driver was possessed of two driving licenses, but unfortunately the Tribunal had not taken note of such fact in its proper perspective and accordingly the case was remanded back to the Tribunal. But, the learned Tribunal, ever after the remand, did not consider the case in its proper perspective and Insurance Company thereafter again assailed the award in FAO No. 451/2005, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nant Ram and ors., decided on 13.10.2011 (Coram: Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge, as his Lordship the then was), wherein this Court taking into consideration the earlier judgment passed by this Court (supra), wherein the question, that had been posed how could a person be issued two driving licences for the same period and how could he legitimately possess two driving licences, was answered to the effect that a person can hold only one driving licence and no person can be permitted to hold more than one driving licence. The only additional driving licence that a person may hold at one time is a learner’s licence in addition to his regular driving licence, but after he completes his learning period successfully, the addition has to be made in the main licence and not by issuing a new licence. It would be apposite to refer to the observations made in paras 9 to 17 of the judgment, which read as under: [9] A driving licence has been defined in Section 2(10) of the Act. It would be apposite to refer to the observations made in paras 9 to 17 of the judgment, which read as under: [9] A driving licence has been defined in Section 2(10) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive such vehicle. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows: "4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles. (1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place : Provided that {a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc} may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. (3) No learner's licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section." [10] A bare perusal of this Section shows that no person under the age of 18 years could drive any motor vehicle except a motor cycle having capacity of less than 50cc in which case the minimum age is 16 years. As far as transport vehicles are concerned, no person under the age of 20 years can be permitted to drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 4(3) of the Act clearly lays down that even a learner's licence shall be issued only to a person who is entitled to drive that particular class of vehicle. Therefore, it is obvious that even a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle can be issued only to a person who is at least 20 years old. [11] Section 5 makes the owner of the motor vehicle responsible for contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In the present case, we are dealing with an owner-cum-driver. Section 6(1) of the Act reads as follows: "6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences. [11] Section 5 makes the owner of the motor vehicle responsible for contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In the present case, we are dealing with an owner-cum-driver. Section 6(1) of the Act reads as follows: "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 authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle." [12] This clearly indicates that a person who holds a driving licence which is in force cannot hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence. We are not concerned with Section 18 or the authorization under Section 139 of the Act. [13] Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: “7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles. (1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's licence." [14] A combined reading of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act clearly indicates that the minimum age for grant of licence except a motor cycle without gear is 18 years. In the case of transport vehicle it is 20 years. The Legislature in its wisdom has also put another condition that a person can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle only if he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. There can be no manner of doubt that no person below the age of 20 years can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle. [15] Section 8(1) of the Act reads as follows:" 8. Grant of learner's licence. There can be no manner of doubt that no person below the age of 20 years can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle. [15] Section 8(1) of the Act reads as follows:" 8. Grant of learner's licence. (1) Any person who is not disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of section 7, 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 intends to receive instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situate, for the issue to him of a learner's licence." [16] A perusal of this provision clearly shows that a learner s licence has to be granted by the Licensing Authority having jurisdiction over the area where the applicant ordinarily resides or carries on business or where he is receiving training and instructions to drive the motor vehicle. Similar provisions exist in Section 9 of the Act. In case a person is granted a driving licence for a particular class of vehicle he can apply to the Licensing Authority having jurisdiction in the area in which he resides or carries on business for addition of other class of vehicles in the licence under Section 11 of the Act. [17] The aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that a person can hold only one driving licence, no person can be permitted to hold more than one driving licence. The only additional driving licence that a person may hold at one time is a learner s licence in addition to his regular driving licence but after he completes his learning period successfully the addition has to be made in the main licence and not by issuing a new licence. In fact this is the only reasonable interpretation which can be given to the Act. In this behalf, it is pertinent to mention that under Sections 16, 19 and 20 of the Act, the Licensing Authorities and the Courts have the power to revoke licences or disqualify person(s) from driving vehicles. The provisions of these sections will be set at naught in case a person is held entitled to hold two driving licences. In this behalf, it is pertinent to mention that under Sections 16, 19 and 20 of the Act, the Licensing Authorities and the Courts have the power to revoke licences or disqualify person(s) from driving vehicles. The provisions of these sections will be set at naught in case a person is held entitled to hold two driving licences. Similarly, there will be no effective suspension or disqualification of a driving licence in terms of Sections 21 to 23 of the Act in case any person holds more than one driving licence. Section 24 of the Act authorizes the Court or authority making an order of disqualification to make endorsement upon the driving licence about the particulars of the order of disqualification. Therefore, every time when a person is challaned and convicted under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, an endorsement can be made on the driving licence. These endorsements under Section 25 of the Act are required to be transferred on new or duplicate driving licence unless the driver is entitled to have a driving licence issued to him free from endorsement. If more than one licence is issued then the whole purpose of making endorsement(s) would become illusory. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no person can have two valid driving licences and can only have one driving licence. It is on the basis of the aforesaid observations that this Court concluded as follows: [22] From the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that Shri Hari Kishan had a driving licence validly issued at Solan. This licence which was issued in the year 1985 was renewed from time to time and as per the material on record was lastly renewed up to 19.7.1998. He could not have had two driving licences at the same time. There is no reason why one driver should have a driving licence to drive LMV and MGV from one authority and another driving licence to drive HMV from another licensing authority. As noticed above, the second licence, which is a laminated licence, was produced only at the time of hearing. No doubt, normally it is for the Insurance Company to disprove the validity of a licence but we are dealing here with a case where the owner-cum-driver has produced one licence and has admitted that he held another licence also. As noticed above, the second licence, which is a laminated licence, was produced only at the time of hearing. No doubt, normally it is for the Insurance Company to disprove the validity of a licence but we are dealing here with a case where the owner-cum-driver has produced one licence and has admitted that he held another licence also. In such a case it is also the duty of the owner-cum-driver to show that the licence is genuine. 12 Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bharat Kharbanda vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors., 2010 ACJ 1701 , wherein it was observed as under: [19] It is the case of the petitioner-owner that the driver was holding both LMV and HTV licence, which were handed over to the police and it was Counsel for the petitioner who did not produce the HTV licence and instead proved LMV licence due to which liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the petitioner being the registered owner of the offending truck. [20] Learned Counsel for the petitioner-owner has not been able to point out any legal provision under which the driver could hold two different licenses, so as to produce them according to his sweet will. [21] Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) strictly prohibits holding of two licences. The case of the driver Raish Ali is not covered under any of the exceptions to this Section. [22] Second proviso to Section 9 of the Act further prohibits Licensing Authority from issuing a new driving licence to an applicant, if he previously held a driving licence, unless for good and sufficient reasons he can show his inability to obtain a duplicate copy of his former driving licence. [23] Section 11 of the Act covers the situation where a person seeks to upgrade his driving licence from one category to the other category. Rule 17 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 provides the requisite format in which the upgradation can be done. [23] Section 11 of the Act covers the situation where a person seeks to upgrade his driving licence from one category to the other category. Rule 17 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 provides the requisite format in which the upgradation can be done. [24] Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid provision of the Act read with Rules, which provide that only one driving licence can be possessed by a driver and the manner in which the licence has to be upgraded from a light motor vehicle to heavy transport vehicle, the contention being raised by the petitioners is wholly untenable. 13 The matter thereafter came up before the same Court in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha and ors., 2015 ACJ 1005 , wherein the sole contention raised by the Insurance Company was that a person cannot hold two driving licences. Upholding such contention, it was observed as under: [3] The insurance company is aggrieved and the sole argument put forth on their behalf is that a person cannot hold two driving licences and the first licence which was produced at the time of accident was found to be fake, therefore, their liability should be discharged. [4] The contention of the other appellant was that the second licence had not been verified and it is presumed to be valid and when one licence verified by the insurance company is found to be fake, it cannot be held that the driver was holding two licences. Reliance was placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balraj & others, 2012 1 RCR(Civ) 898, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nation Insurance Co., 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 273 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & others, 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 114. [5] I have gone through the authorities referred to on behalf of appellant Sardari. The issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation's case did not relate to the issue of two licences neither this aspect was examined in Balraj's case. In the present case, there was one driving licence that was produced by the driver at the time of the accident and the other was produced during the pendency of the claim petition by moving an application for additional evidence. In the present case, there was one driving licence that was produced by the driver at the time of the accident and the other was produced during the pendency of the claim petition by moving an application for additional evidence. It is settled that the insurance company is not liable under the policy in respect of any liability occurred while the insured vehicle is being driven by a person who was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident. Respondent nos.1 & 2 had tendered the certified copy the driving licence Ex.RX and had closed their evidence which was later found to be fake. Ex.RX was the licence which the driver held at the time of the accident and the genuineness of which had been determined. In this context, Section 6(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is relevant and reads as under: "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 authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle." [6] The language of the aforesaid Section is clear that a person can have only one driving licence at one point of time. If any addition is to be made, the same has to be endorsed in the same driving licence. [7] Why a person would have two driving licences. The reason is obvious to hoodwink the law enforcement agencies. A particular driving licence is to be used in a particular set of circumstances as per convenience of the user. In criminal proceedings a forged driving licence is handed over to the police, but in proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, to avoid civil liability, another driving licence which is perhaps 'obtained' for that very purpose is tendered. The method adopted is too mischievous. The object is to deceive the Insurance Companies. Should the Tribunal or the Court become a party to such frauds by ignoring forgery and hold that at least one driving licence was genuine ? [8] The answer must be 'no'. It was never the intention of the Legislature framing the law. While granting compensation, the Tribunal has to uphold the law. Should the Tribunal or the Court become a party to such frauds by ignoring forgery and hold that at least one driving licence was genuine ? [8] The answer must be 'no'. It was never the intention of the Legislature framing the law. While granting compensation, the Tribunal has to uphold the law. Anybody found to be tinkering with it has to be dealt with a strong hand. Such malpractices cannot and should not be tolerated. The fact remains that the driving licence which respondent No.1 was holding at the time of the fateful accident was a forged document. Merely because the appellant later on came up with another driving licence in his name, does not mean that at the time of the accident, respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence. [9] Interestingly the owner of the vehicle is the father of respondent no.1. It cannot be assumed that he did not know that the licence of his son was forged. A particular driving licence was used and the ownerdriver cannot avoid their liability by introducing another driving licence. There is no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. The insurance company is absolved of its liability of payment of compensation. The amount that has been paid by insurance company can be recovered from respondent nos.1 & 2 by filing an execution petition. Since, there was a stay with respect to 50% of the awarded amount, it is ordered that the balance amount shall be paid directly to the claimants by respondent nos.1 & 2 along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. 14 The issue again came up before the same Court in Ranjana Devi and ors. vs. Jaspinder Singh and ors., 2018 ACJ 2250 , wherein it was held as under: [9] So far as the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly observed against them that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive a Toyota Innova at the time of the accident. The owner of the vehicle was held by the Tribunal, to have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by the driver without license. The owner of the vehicle was held by the Tribunal, to have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by the driver without license. However, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. The only contention raised by the appellants, i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is that the driver held two valid driving licences at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in detail. The Tribunal observed that the driver was possessed two driving licences. Driving licence Ex.R3 was for motor cycle without gear/motor cycle scooter/car/jeep/tractor and driving licence Ex.R2 was with regard to MCWG and LMV. At the time of accident, the driver was found to be in possession of driving licence Ex.R3 which was taken into possession by the police at the time of arrest of the driver. The Tribunal having placed reliance on a number of the judgments, observed that the first driving licence of the driver authorising him to drive motor cycle without gear/motor cycle/ scooter/ car/ jeep/ tractor cannot be said to be valid for driving of offending vehicle i.e. Toyota Innova. The Tribunal having quoted the provisions of Section 6 (1) and Section 9 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that only one driving licence can be possessed by a driver and the provisions of the Act provide the manner in which the licence has to be upgraded from a light motor vehicle to heavy transport vehicle. The Tribunal found the contentions of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle untenable. The Tribunal held the second driving licence (Ex.R2) possessed by the driver having been issued subsequently after issuance of driving licence Ex.R3, as illegal and invalid for all practical purposes. Thus, the driver was not with a valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the Toyota Innova at the time of the accident and accordingly the owner was held to have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by handing over the vehicle to the driver who was not armed with valid and effective driving licence. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 15 Thus, it can conveniently be held that a person cannot hold more than one driving licence, save and except to an limited extent as explained by this Court in Nant Ram’s case (supra). 16 However, the moot question, which still remains at large is whether mere absence, fake or an invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving a vehicle at the relevant time can be held to be a sufficient ground to exonerate the Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle being insured. 17 This question assumes importance as it is the specific case of the owner of the vehicle in this case that he had engaged the services of Manoj Kumar as driver only after seeing his driving licence and testing driving his skills. The necessary pleadings in this regard have been set out in the reply to the claim petition, which read as under: “That the respondent No.2 while employing the respondent No.3 has made an inquiry about his capacity to drive the vehicle and also checked his license and after satisfying himself employed the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 has not committed any breach of the policy, the respondent No.2 has insured the vehicle with respondent No.1 and they are liable to indemnify the respondent No.2.” 18 In addition thereto, the owner of the vehicle in his evidence by way of an affidavit has specifically stated that before engaging Manoj Kumar as driver, he had checked his driving licence and ability to drive the vehicle on road. Even in crossexamination, he has specifically stated that he had not seen driving licence, Ext.RW1/C, but had only seen driving licence, Mark X (Ext. RW3/A). 19 Not only this, even driver of the vehicle, who appeared in the witness box as DW3, has specifically stated that his driving licence was Ext. RW3/A. He further went on to depose that he had been driving the vehicles for the last about 12 years and owner of the vehicle before engaging him as driver had seen his driving licence, Ext. RW3/A. He further went on to depose that he had been driving the vehicles for the last about 12 years and owner of the vehicle before engaging him as driver had seen his driving licence, Ext. RW3/A. 20 It is more than settled that as far as owner of the vehicle in concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person, who is qualified and competent to driver the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. This was so held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru & ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338 , and was thereafter reiterated in three Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 , 21 Both these decisions, in turn, have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company (2013) 10 SCC 217 ,wherein it was observed as under: “5. Though the appellant is entitled to succeed on the ground that the insurer had not proved beyond doubt that driver Nirmal Singh did not possess a valid driving licence, we shall also advert to the legal position regarding the liability of the insurance company when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a fake driving licence. 6. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and Others, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has taken the view that the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. It was further held that the wilful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. Still further it was held that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving licence from the issuing authority at the time of employment. It was further held that the wilful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. Still further it was held that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving licence from the issuing authority at the time of employment. The employer needs to only test the capacity of the driver and if after such test, he has been appointed, there cannot be any liability on the employer. The situation would be different when the employer was told that the driving licence of its employee is fake or false and yet the employer not taking appropriate action to get the same duly verified from the issuing authority. 7. We may extract the relevant paragraphs from the judgment: “18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2)(a)(ii). As seen in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandia and Sohan Lal Passi cases the breach must be on part of the insured. We are in full agreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd results. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the Insurance Company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic "No". To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of the person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the company is insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with what is laid down in aforementioned cases viz that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured.” “20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.” 8. The matter was subsequently considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and Others. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.” 8. The matter was subsequently considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and Others. The said Bench was of the view that in case the insured did not take reasonable and adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence, the liability would still be open-ended and will have to be determined on the basis of facts of each case. The relevant discussions are available at paragraphs 92, 99, 100 and 101, which are extracted below: “92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru case, the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever.” 99. So far as the purported conflict in the judgments of Kamla and Lehru is concerned, we may wish to point out that the defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one, would be available to the insurance companies, but whether despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not would be a question which will have to be determined in each case. 100. This Court, however, in Lehru must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances have any duty to make any enquiry in this respect. 100. This Court, however, in Lehru must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances have any duty to make any enquiry in this respect. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case.” 101. The submission of Mr. Salve that in Lehru case, this Court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. Such defence can certainly be raised but it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver.” 9. Swaran Singh’s case (supra) was subsequently considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut. It was explained that: “Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time…” 10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh’s case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation. 11. On facts, in the instant case, the appellant employer had employed the third respondent Nirmal Singh as driver in 1994. In the process of employment, he had been put to a driving test and he had been imparted training also. The accident took place only after six years of his service in PRTC as driver. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the insured is at fault in having employed a person whose licence has been proved to be fake by the insurance company before the Tribunal. As we have already noted above, on scanning the evidence of the licensing authority before the Tribunal, it cannot also be absolutely held that the licence to the driver had not been issued by the said authority and that the licence was fake. As we have already noted above, on scanning the evidence of the licensing authority before the Tribunal, it cannot also be absolutely held that the licence to the driver had not been issued by the said authority and that the licence was fake. Though the appellant had also taken a contention that the compensation is on the higher side, no serious attempt has been made and according to us justifiably, to canvas that position.” 22 In view of the aforesaid legal position and the ratio laid down therein, the mere fact that the driver was having two driving licences, which fact was not in the knowledge of the owner, would not exonerate the Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify the owner as it cannot be said that there was willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the owner being insured and, therefore, judgments, as referred to in paras 11 to 14 (supra) would be of no assistance or help and would not carry any further case of the Insurance Company. 23 Now adverting to cross-objections (Cross Objections No.18/2014) filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 24 As regards the award of compensation, there can be no dispute that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is now required to be determined in accordance with the decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ACJ 2700 . 25 Why this case came to be referred to the Constitutional Bench, the answer is not difficult to find and the same is set out in para1 of the judgment itself which reads thus: “Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 , thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters have been placed before us.” 26 The conflict between the judgments as extracted above was resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) was not a binding precedent as it had not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari versus Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the entire conspectus of law arrived at the following conclusions: “i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 14 and 15 of Sarla Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), read with para 21 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to 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 per cent in every three years.” 27 Conclusions (iv) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of these cases. 28 It is thus clear from the aforesaid that the compensation henceforth to be awarded in favour of the claimants is essentially to be abide by the aforesaid conclusions, more particularly, conclusions No.(iv) to (viii) which except for conclusions No.(v) and (vi) are self-speaking. 29 Now, as regards conclusions No. (v) and (vi), it would be apposite to extract paragraphs No.14, 15 and 21 along with table as referred to in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus: “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra’s case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 for 66 to 70 years.” Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted in Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in Second Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 years - - - 15 20 15 to 20 years 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 years 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 years 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 years 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 years 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 years 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 years 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 years 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 years 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 years 6 8 7 5 6 Above to 65 years 5 5 5 5 5 30 Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. For this purpose, this Court would deal with the case by drawing a comparative table of the amount actually awarded by the learned Tribunal along with modified award. 31 The claimants are the widow, daughters and mother of the deceased Parvez Akhter, who was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. As per claim set up by the claimants, the deceased was running the concern, known as M/s Unique Communication and was earning Rs. 25000/per month. However, no cogent and convincing evidence has been brought on record by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased save and except copy of income tax return for the year 2004-05 having been filed by the deceased, which shows his income to be Rs. 49000/per annum. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4500/per month. 32 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it can conveniently be held that the monthly income of the deceased would work out to be Rs. 4500/and since the deceased was self employed and was aged about 22 years at the time of accident, an addition of 40% of the established income would have to be taken towards future prospects and thus, his total monthly income would work out to be Rs. 6300/(Rs.4500+Rs.1800) and after deduction of 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses (Rs.1575/), monthly income would work out to be Rs. 4725/and annually to be Rs.56,700/. In this way, the claimants, after applying multiplier of 18 would be entitled to Rs.10,20,600/(56,700x18) towards loss of contribution to family. 33 Learned counsel for the claimants has fairly conceded that only a sum of Rs. Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/and Rs.15,000/towards conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses would be admissible to the claimants in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 34 That apart, claimant/respondent No.4, Rasada, being mother of the deceased has not been granted any compensation by the learned Tribunal towards loss of filial as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chandu Ram & Ors 2018 (11) SCALE 263. Therefore, claimant No.4 would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/towards loss of filial. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chandu Ram & Ors 2018 (11) SCALE 263. Therefore, claimant No.4 would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/towards loss of filial. 35 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation that would eventually work out is as under : Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court 1. Loss of dependency: Rs.6,48,000/- Loss of dependency: Rs.10,20,60/- Loss of consortium: Rs.10,000/- Nil 2. Conventional charges including funeral expenses=Rs5000/- Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/- towards conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 3. Rs. 40,000/-each-towards loss of filial to claimants No.3 and 4. 4. Total = Rs.6,63,000/- Total= Rs.11,30,600/- 36 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal (FAO No. 132/2015) filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas the crossobjections (C.O. No. 18/2014) filed by the claimants are partly allowed. Consequently, the impugned award, dated 23.8.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would now be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,30,600/instead of Rs.6,63,000/along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the Insurance Company, to be apportioned amongst them as ordered by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.