JUDGMENT (ORAL) The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter „insurer for short) is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua („the Tribunal for short) in file No.96/CP titled Joshi Sharma and another v. Kuldeep Singh and another. The Tribunal vide its award, impugned in this appeal, has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”). The insurer has been held liable to indemnify the owner- respondent No.3 herein by satisfying the award. 2. The award has been challenged primarily on two grounds:- i) Respondent No.3 –driver-cum-owner, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was not possessed of a valid and effective driving license and that despite the fact that the issue was proved by the insurer by leading cogent evidence, the Tribunal erroneously held the issue not proved. ii) The Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month in the absence of any proof, documentary or otherwise, brought on record. 3. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant- insurer and perused the record, I find no good reason or justification to interfere with the award. It may be noted that in light of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues, which included issue No.3 which reads thus:- “3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2” 4. The onus to prove this issue was on the insurer. As noted in the impugned award, the insurer produced RW-Kulbhushan Singh, an employee of the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu and RW- Amit Singh, stated to be the branch manager of the insurer. As per the statement of RW-Kulbushan Singh, an employee of the office of RTO, Jammu, it has come on record that respondent No.3 had been issued ‘HMV license on which there was no endorsement permitting the driver to drive motorcycle as well. The witness has further clarified that person holding HMV license is competent to drive HGV and HGV license is issued one year after issuance of LMV license. The witness has further clarified that person holding HMV license is competent to drive HGV and HGV license is issued one year after issuance of LMV license. Whether or not respondent No.3 had been issued LMV license before grant of HMV license and whether that license was valid for driving motorcycle is not coming forth either from the record of the RTO, Jammu or from the statement of RW-Kulbushan Singh. To the similar extent is the statement of RW-Amit Singh. 5. In light of the aforesaid evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurer had miserably failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the motorcycle. There could be no exception to the view taken by the Tribunal. 6. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant could not point out any error or infirmity in computing the compensation. The claimants had sufficiently proved before the Tribunal that the income of the deceased was not, in any case, less than Rs.5,000/- per month. I do not find any illegality or error in accepting the evidence of the claimants with respect to the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal appears to have gone wrong with respect to the applicability of the multiplier and the compensation payable under conventional heads. However, this Court is of the view that even if, the aforesaid approach adopted by the Tribunal, which perhaps was not an incorrect approach altogether when the claim petition was decided in view of the legal position then prevailing, may not be permissible, yet I am of the view that the compensation payable to the claimants would still come to around about Rs.7,60,000/-, which is the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 7. For the foregoing reasons and without entering into the question of applicability of multiplier and the compensation payable under conventional heads, this Court holds the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as just and fair compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. Registry to release the amount, if deposited by the appellant, in favour of the claimants after proper identification and verification as per the terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.