ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by award dated 25.6.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 31/14 by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- to be jointly and severally by respondents No. 1,3 and 4 before the Claims Tribunal i.e. driver, insurer and owner of the vehicle. 2. The main ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant in the memo of appeal is that after closure of the evidence, driving licence of respondent No. 5 was placed on record by the respondent No. 6 and it was found that such licence was issued from Fatehgarh (Farukkhabad). Insurance Company tried to get such licence verified but Licencing Authority of Farukkhabad dismissed the application moved by the investigator of the appellant Insurance Company putting a remark to the effect that there were a lot of irregularities regarding driving licences at Divisional Transport Office, Farukkhabad and large amount of record was misplaced and some part was submitted to Divisional Transport Office, Kanpur and, therefore, in absence of appropriate record pertaining to driving licence No. 14043/Farukkhabad/09 said licence could not be verified. Based on such facts genuineness of licence was not verified, insurer has tried to avoid its liability. 3. Based on such facts genuineness of licence was not verified, insurer has tried to avoid its liability. 3. Provisions contained in section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act are crystal clear that: "(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely : (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non- disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. Thus, it is apparent that merely showing that RTO Farukkhabad was not cooperating and had not given any authentication of the driving licence of offending vehicle is not sufficient ground under section 149 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act to avoid its liability and this issue has also been discussed in Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, as reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 . 4. Another issue has been raised is grant of future prospects @ 50 % whereas according to the appellant since age of the deceased has been accepted to be 32 years and deceased was working privately as Electro Homeopath, future prospects could have been only up to the extent of 40% and not 50% and this fact has been glossed over by the learned Member, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while passing award. This position has now been settled in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, as reported in 2018 (1) JLJ 200 = 2017(13) Scale 12 . It is also submitted that Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- under other miscellaneous conventional heads which needs to be reduced to Rs. 70,000/- again in the light of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 5. After taking into consideration the submissions as have been made by the learned counsel for Insurance Company, this Court is of the opinion that since Tribunal has admitted income of the deceased at Rs. 1,20,000/- then 40% of it will be Rs. 48,000/-, therefore, annual income of the deceased will be for the purpose of computation of the claim will be taken at Rs. 1,68,000/-. Tribunal has accepted that 1/4th of the amount is to be deducted towards expenses which deceased must have been incurred on self, therefore, the dependency will come out to Rs. 1,26,000/- per annum and when multiplier of 16 is applied then loss of dependency comes to Rs. 20,16,000/- per annum instead of Rs. 21,60,000/- computed by the Claims Tribunal. Similarly, when Rs. 70,000/- is added under conventional heads then total compensation will come out to Rs. 20,86,000/- in place of 23,00,000/- as has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. In view of above facts, appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 21,60,000/- computed by the Claims Tribunal. Similarly, when Rs. 70,000/- is added under conventional heads then total compensation will come out to Rs. 20,86,000/- in place of 23,00,000/- as has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. In view of above facts, appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.