JUDGMENT : P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. Among these appeals, M.A.C.A No.1029 of 2011 is by the claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and M.A.C.A. No.2292 of 2013 is by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident which is the subject matter of the said proceedings. 2. One Rajan died on 20.08.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident took place on 19.08.2005 involving a motor cycle. The deceased was aged 56 years. He was a carpenter. The mother, wife and four children of the deceased initiated the proceedings for compensation before the Tribunal. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-by way of compensation. The owner and rider of the vehicle remained ex parte. The insurer of the vehicle contested the proceedings, contending that the rider of the vehicle had no licence to ride the vehicle and as such, they are not liable to indemnify the owner of the liability arising out of the accident. The Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,22,000/-by way of compensation. It also found that the rider of the vehicle had no licence. In the circumstances, the Tribunal passed an award permitting the claimants to recover the compensation determined as due to them from the owner of the vehicle. As noted, both the claimants as also the owner of the vehicle are aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal and hence these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle as also the learned counsel for the insurer of the vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the insurer from the liability on the ground that the rider of the vehicle had no licence. It was pointed out that as it was found that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident, having found that the rider of the vehicle was not holding a licence, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the insurer of the vehicle to realise the compensation from the owner after paying the compensation to the claimants. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads are grossly inadequate and the claimants are entitled to more compensation on all the available heads. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads are grossly inadequate and the claimants are entitled to more compensation on all the available heads. 5. The learned counsel for the insurer admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident at the relevant time was covered by a policy of insurance. The argument advanced by the learned counsel, in the circumstances, was only that in so far as it was established in the proceedings that the rider of the vehicle had no licence, the Tribunal should have permitted the insurer to realise the compensation from the owner, after paying the same to the claimants. 6. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [ 2004(1) KLT 781 (SC)], the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle contended that mere absence of driving licence is not a defence available to the insurer against the insured and in order to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and has failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition in the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver. It was also contended by the learned counsel that even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licenced driver, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured, unless the breach is so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. According to the learned counsel, there is no finding by the Tribunal that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver and the absence of licence in the instant case amounts to fundamental breach which contributed the cause of the accident. The essence of the submissions made by the learned counsel, in the circumstances, was that in so far as it was established that the vehicle at the time of accident was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the insurer, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer to satisfy the award. 7. The essence of the submissions made by the learned counsel, in the circumstances, was that in so far as it was established that the vehicle at the time of accident was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the insurer, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer to satisfy the award. 7. I shall first examine the correctness of the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal for payment to the claimants. It is seen that the Tribunal has computed the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency, reckoning the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-and applying the multiplier 8' without taking note of the future prospects of the deceased. The specific pleading of the claimants in the claim petition was that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of persons whose income could not be established at Rs.4,500/-and Rs.6,500/-, in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case took place in the year 2005 and the fact that the deceased was a skilled worker, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-as claimed. Likewise, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], the multiplier to be applied in the case of a person aged 56 years is 9' and not 8'. Again, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, in so far as the deceased was aged only 56 years, 10% of the income should have been added towards future prospects, and considering the number of dependants, only one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased while working out the compensation payable for loss of dependency. If compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency is worked out in this fashion, the same would come to Rs.4,45,500/-(Rs.5,000x110/100x12x9x3/4). The Tribunal has granted to the claimants only a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-under this head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,53,500/-by way of compensation under this head. Further, it is seen that only a consolidated sum of Rs.5,000/-has been granted by the Tribunal towards transportation and funeral expenses. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, having regard to the fact that the accident is one that took place in the year 2005, according to me, a sum of Rs.12,500/-should have been granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.1,000/-should have been granted by the Tribunal towards transportation expenses also. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,500/-under the aforesaid heads. Likewise, only a sum of Rs.5,000/-has been granted to the claimants towards pain and suffering. According to me, the Tribunal should have granted at least a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the said head, especially since the death was not instantaneous. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-under that head. Towards compensation for loss of consortium, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/-to the wife of the deceased. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, having regard to the fact that the accident is one that took place in the year 2005, I am of the view that the Tribunal could have granted at least a sum of Rs.35,000/-under that head. The claimants are therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/-under that head. Again, towards loss of love and affection to the children, only an amount of Rs.10,000/-has been granted by the Tribunal. True, the children of the deceased are grown up. Nevertheless, I am of the view that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others ( 2018 ACJ 2782 ), the Tribunal should have granted at least a sum of Rs.25,000/-each to the children of the deceased. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.90,000/-towards compensation under that head. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.3,82,000/-. 8. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others ( 2018 ACJ 2782 ), the Tribunal should have granted at least a sum of Rs.25,000/-each to the children of the deceased. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.90,000/-towards compensation under that head. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.3,82,000/-. 8. Now, I shall deal with the remaining contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties together as they are closely interlinked. In cases where breach of the conditions specified in the policies of insurance as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the insured is established, the insurer has only a right of recovery of the compensation from the insured after satisfying the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant is a proposition which has been holding the field for quite a long time. In Swaran Singh, the correctness of the said proposition was examined by the Apex Court, among others, in the context of breach of the conditions of the policy excluding driving of the vehicles by persons who are not duly licensed, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, and it was held in the said case that mere absence of driving licence is not a defence available to the insurer against the insured and in order to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and has failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition in the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver. It was also held by the Apex Court in the said case that the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured even where the insurer is able to prove breach of the condition in the policies on the part of the insured excluding driving by persons who are not duly licensed, unless the said breach is so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. 9. In order to comprehend the said decision, it is necessary to refer to some of the statutory provisions. 9. In order to comprehend the said decision, it is necessary to refer to some of the statutory provisions. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorising him to drive that vehicle. Section 5 of the Act provides that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provision contained in Section 3 to drive the vehicle. In other words, it is the obligation of the owner of every motor vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is not driven by a person other than one who holds an effective licence to drive the same. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act permits insurers of policies issued in terms of the provisions contained in the Act to defend proceedings for compensation on any of the grounds mentioned therein. The grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 include breach of conditions in the policy excluding driving of the vehicle by any person who is not duly licensed. In other words, an insurer of a statutory policy is entitled to avoid the liability under the policy on that ground. It is trite that in order to avoid the liability, the insurer must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceedings, but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. It is in the said context, the Apex Court held that mere absence of driving licence is not in itself a defence available to the insurer against the insured or third parties and that the insurer has to prove that the insured has failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver in order to avoid its liability. Such an interpretation is seen to have been given for the statutory provision contained in sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act by the Apex Court as it was found that only when the insured is negligent and fails to take reasonable care in the matter of ensuring that the vehicle is driven by a duly licensed driver that the breach of the conditions in the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver on the part of the insured can be presumed, which is mandatory for absolving the insurer from the liability under the policy of insurance. Instances of liability arising out of accidents caused by unlicensed persons engaged by service centres, workshops and similar, liability arising out of accidents caused by unlicensed persons who commit theft of the vehicle, liability arising out of accidents caused by unlicensed persons to whom vehicles are entrusted by the duly licensed drivers without the knowledge of owner, liability arising out of accidents caused by unlicensed persons who cheat the owner of the vehicle by producing fake licences etc. might be the reason which prompted the Apex Court to give such an interpretation to the statutory provision as aforesaid. As clarified by the Apex Court in the said case, whether there has been breach of the conditions in the policy on the part of the owner as regards the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver is a fact to be ascertained on the facts of each case and the burden of proof wherefor would be on. 10. The Apex Court has also noticed in the said judgment that there would be cases where accidents occur without there being any fault or involvement on the part of the driver of the vehicle such as accidents taking place owing to unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar and other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite driving licence. The reference made by the Apex Court to the decision of the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (3) KLT 213 (SC), where a vehicle is lost by fire, demonstrates the said fact. The reference made by the Apex Court to the decision of the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (3) KLT 213 (SC), where a vehicle is lost by fire, demonstrates the said fact. It is seen that it is in the said background that the Apex Court has clarified that the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless breach of conditions regarding use of the vehicle by duly licensed drivers is so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. But in a case where it is established that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person who was not duly licensed, it is not necessary for the insurer of the vehicle to establish further that want of licence on the part of the driver has contributed to the cause of the accident. A contrary view would be as good as laying down a proposition that the insurers, in a case involving breach of the condition regarding the driving of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, will have to prove that the driver did not know driving as well. In the light of Sections 3 and 5 the Act, according to me, in a case where it is established that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person who was not duly licensed, it can be presumed, unless the contrary is established or could be inferred from the available materials, that want of licence on the part of the driver has contributed to the cause of the accident. Having thus understood the decision of the Apex Court in Swaran Singh, I shall revert to the facts of the present case. 11. As noted, the owner of the vehicle has not entered appearance in the proceedings on receipt of notice from the Tribunal. It has come out that in the course of the proceedings, the insurer has preferred an application seeking orders calling upon the owner and rider of the vehicle to produce driving licence. 11. As noted, the owner of the vehicle has not entered appearance in the proceedings on receipt of notice from the Tribunal. It has come out that in the course of the proceedings, the insurer has preferred an application seeking orders calling upon the owner and rider of the vehicle to produce driving licence. Though notice was served on the owner and rider of the vehicle, they have not produced the driving licence of the rider before the Tribunal nor did they file an affidavit before the Tribunal indicating the reasons if any, for their inability to produce the driving licence, if the rider in fact had the licence. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the rider of the vehicle was not holding a licence to drive the vehicle, and directed the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award. The owner of the vehicle has no case in this appeal that the rider of the vehicle was duly licensed at the time of the accident. He pleaded ignorance of the said fact. Instead, the case set out by the owner in the appeal is that the motor cycle involved in the accident was one kept by him for use by his employees and he had not entrusted the motor cycle to the rider at the relevant time who is not his employee. According to him, the rider has obtained possession of the motor cycle from the place where his employees kept the vehicle. First of all, a person to whom notice of the proceedings was issued twice and who has not chosen to adduce any evidence in the matter cannot be permitted to raise contentions of the aforesaid nature in appeal. The proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the owner that even in cases where there is no contest, before fastening the liability to pay compensation on the owner, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the insured was guilty of negligence and has failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver and that the absence of licence was the cause of the accident, cannot be accepted. In a case where the insurer establishes that the vehicle at the time of the accident was driven by a person who was not duly licensed, according to me, it is for the owner of the vehicle to establish that he has taken all reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver and in the absence of any materials showing that the owner is not guilty of negligence and that he has taken all reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the contrary can be presumed. Similarly, as found above, in the light of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, in a case where it is established that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person who was not duly licensed, it can be presumed, unless the contrary is established or could be inferred from the available materials, that want of licence on the part of the rider has contributed to the cause of the accident. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, in the circumstances, are liable to be rejected and I do so. 12. At the same time, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, in so far as it was found that the vehicle at the time of accident was covered by a valid insurance policy and the contention of the insurer is only as regards the breach of its terms by the owner of the vehicle regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the insurer of the vehicle to realise the compensation from the owner, after paying the compensation to the claimants. In the result, M.A.C.A. No.2292 of 2013 is dismissed and M.A.C.A No.1029 of 2011 is allowed in part granting to the claimants an additional compensation of Rs.3,82,000/-, and directing the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy the entire award with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Needless to say that the insurer will be entitled to realise the compensation from the owner of the vehicle, after paying the same to the claimants.