JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurer”) is directed against the award dated 29.05.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (“Tribunal” for short) in a claim petition No. 94/Claims titled “Kuldeep Kour and ors vs. Anil Chibber and others”. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimants”) have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which shall be dealt with separately hereinafter. 3. However, with a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the insurer, it would be advantageous to refer to few facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal as also the cross-objections. On 05.05.2003, a motor vehicle accident took place involving the offending vehicle i.e Bus bearing registration No. JK02N-7883 driven by respondent No.5(hereinafter referred to as the “driver”) in a rash and negligent manner in which deceased Paramjeet Singh, who was on his motor cycle, got injured. The said Parmjeet Singh succumbed to the injuries on spot. The deceased was survived by the claimants consisting of his wife Kuldeep Kour, one minor daughter Navneet Kour and parents Sardar Swarn Singh and Smt. Pritam Kour. 4. Having been deprived of their breadwinner, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on 20.05.2003 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 40.00 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The claim petition was contested by the appellant only, whereas the owner and the driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. On the basis of pleadings of the contesting parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i). Whether an accident took place on 05.05.03 at Maheshwar near Samba due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bus No. JK02N-7883 in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Paramjeet Singh sustained fatal injuries ? OPP (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP (iii) Whether driver of the offending Bus at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the owner has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-3 (iv) Whether deceased while driving the motorcycle has contributed in causing the accident ? OPR-3 (v) Relief. 5. OPP (iii) Whether driver of the offending Bus at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the owner has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-3 (iv) Whether deceased while driving the motorcycle has contributed in causing the accident ? OPR-3 (v) Relief. 5. The claimants, besides recording the statement of one of them i.e, wife of the deceased, also recorded the testimony of Nk Vinod Kumar and Lakhvinder Singh. The insurer examined Pardeep Kumar, a licence clerk, SDM and Anil Chibbar, clerk in the office of RTO Pathankote. 6. The Tribunal, after carefully evaluating the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, held issue No.1 proved in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. It was held that the motor vehicle accident, in which the deceased lost his life, happened due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 7. Issue No.3, the onus of proof whereof, was on the insurer, was held proved in favour of the insurer and against the claimants. The Tribunal, on the basis of testimony of two official witnesses produced by the insurer, concluded that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal found that the licence claimed by the driver had been issued in the name of Tarsem Singh son of Chura Singh and not in the name of driver Anil Chibber. Issue Nos.2 and 4 were held proved in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. 9. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence on record to prove that the deceased, who, at the time of accident, was driving his motor cycle which was hit by the offending vehicle, had contributed in causing the accident in any manner. The Tribunal, accordingly, computed the compensation and found the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,41,456/-, the breakup whereof, as indicated in the award, is as under: 1. For loss of dependency Rs.16,11,456/- 2. For funeral expenses Rs.15000/- 3. For loss of consortium Rs.15000/- 10. The Tribunal, accordingly, computed the compensation and found the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,41,456/-, the breakup whereof, as indicated in the award, is as under: 1. For loss of dependency Rs.16,11,456/- 2. For funeral expenses Rs.15000/- 3. For loss of consortium Rs.15000/- 10. It was further provided by the Tribunal that the insurer would, in the first instance, satisfy the award by making the payment of compensation to the claimants and then, would be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 11 The insurer is aggrieved and assails the impugned award on the following grounds: (i.) That in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a fake driving licence, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the insurer of its liability to indemnify the insured and make payment of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, erroneously applied the principle of “pay and recover” in the instant case. (ii.) That no compensation for loss of future prospectus could have been given in the instant case, for the deceased was an army personnel and his income from the salary was specific and certain. (iii.) That the Tribunal committed an error by applying the deduction on account of personal expenses to the tune of ¼th of the income, whereas having regarding to the fact that only widow and minor daughter were dependent on him, the Tribunal ought to have applied the deduction at the rate of 1/3rd of the income. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently argues that in view of the grounds urged, the insurer may be absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. He also urges that having regard to the evidence brought on record by the claimants, the amount of compensation awarded be reduced, so as to make it just and fair compensation. 13. Per contra, Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award passed is on the lower side and is not in consonance with the recent precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the grounds of challenge urged by the insurer and the arguments put forth have no legs to stand. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the grounds of challenge urged by the insurer and the arguments put forth have no legs to stand. It is true and as is discernible on a glance of the impugned award that the insurer had succeeded in proving before the Tribunal that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, but it is nowhere come in the evidence or testimony of any of the witnesses of the insurer that owner of the offending vehicle had engaged the services of the driver even after being aware that the licence possessed by him was fake and invalid. Whether or not the licence, on the face of it, was fake or the same could have been detected only after an enquiry made from the licencing authority, which had issued it, is also not in the evidence on record. 15 In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was left with no option, but to apply the principle of “pay and recover”. The position of law on the point is no longer res integra. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed the issue and held as under: “……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… The breach of policy condition i.e disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149 have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. 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 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.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………” 16. To avoid its liability towards 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.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………” 16. In view of the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in various precedents, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the instant case award shall be satisfied by the insurer in the first instance and thereafter it would be at liberty to recover the same from the insured. 17. The plea of the insurer that the award of the compensation is on the higher side is also without any substance. Further plea of the appellant that there should have been no increase towards loss of future prospects is not tenable in law in view of the legal position on the point well enunciated in the cases of Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 ). 18. The Tribunal has committed no illegality in increasing the income of the deceased by adding 50% by way of future prospects. 19. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the insurer that going by the fact that the deceased was survived by only two dependents i.e, widow and minor daughter, the Tribunal should have applied deduction at the rate of 1/3rd of the established income instead of 1/4th is also without any merit. Apart from the wife and the minor daughter of the deceased, mother shall also be taken as a dependent. Even if we were to ignore the father from the account of dependents, the deduction, to be applied in terms of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), would be 1/4th which has been correctly applied by the Tribunal. 20 No other argument was raised to assail the impugned award. 21 For the foregoing reasons, I find this appeal devoid of merit and same is, accordingly, dismissed. 20 No other argument was raised to assail the impugned award. 21 For the foregoing reasons, I find this appeal devoid of merit and same is, accordingly, dismissed. Cross Appeal 19/2010 As noted above, the claimants have filed their cross objections and are seeking enhancement of the compensation on the following grounds: (i) That having regard to the proved age of the deceased i.e 28 years, the applicable multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma’s case (supra) was 17, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. (ii) That no sum has been awarded under the conventional head “loss of estate” (iii) That a sum awarded under the head “loss of consortium” is also not in tune with the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 . Having heard learned counsel for the cross-objector and Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the insurer, I find that the argument of learned counsel for the cross objectors has substance. As provided in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) which is consistently followed thereafter, in the age group 26 to 30, the applicable multiplier is 17 and, therefore, there was no reason or justification to apply the multiplier of 16 as has been done by the Tribunal. To this extent, the amount awarded under the head “loss of dependency” deserves to be modified. Similarly, the omission by the Tribunal to award Rs. 15000/-for loss of estate is also not justified. Likewise, under the head “loss of consortium” in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company (supra), a sum of Rs. 40,000/-by way of loss of consortium is required to be awarded in favour of wife and minor daughter of the deceased. Accordingly, the modified award shall be as under: i. For loss of dependency Rs.17,12,172/-(100716 x 17) ii. For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- iii. For loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-(40000+40000/-) iv. For loss of estate Rs.15000/- Total Rs.1500/- Insurer to deposit the balance amount in the Registry of this Court within four weeks. Let the amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court, be released forthwith in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award. For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- iii. For loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-(40000+40000/-) iv. For loss of estate Rs.15000/- Total Rs.1500/- Insurer to deposit the balance amount in the Registry of this Court within four weeks. Let the amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court, be released forthwith in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award. The balance amount shall also be released in the same manner as and when the same is deposited by the insurer.