JUDGMENT : SANDESH, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.C.No.463/2016 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.04.2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru questioning the fastening of liability on the respondent No.1-owner and also not considering the dependency of the claimants while awarding compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants are sons and married daughter of the deceased Smt. Obakka. That on 08.08.2015, the deceased Obakka and her daughter were standing on left side of Tumkur-Madhugiri Road in front of Shivaganga Talkies, Koratagere Town and at that point of time, a passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-06-B-6616 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Obakka and her daughter. As a result, the said Obakka and her daughter sustained injuries. The injured Obakka was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Tumkur wherein she took treatment as inpatient and while taking the treatment at about 11.00 p.m. on the same day, she succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants in the claim petition have contended that they have spent more than Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and also spent the amount towards transportation of dead body and funeral ceremony, in all amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is further contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was aged about 45 years and was doing vegetable business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As a result of death of deceased Obakka, the claimants have lost earning member of the family. 4. The respondent No.1-owner has filed the written statement denying negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also avocation and income of the deceased. 5. The respondent No.2-insurance company also filed the written statement contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit as on the date of the accident and there was violation of policy conditions. Hence, respondent No.2-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim have examined the second petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P11. The respondent No.1- owner examined himself as R.W.1 and not relied upon any documentary evidence. The respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any of the witnesses. 7. 6. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim have examined the second petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P11. The respondent No.1- owner examined himself as R.W.1 and not relied upon any documentary evidence. The respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any of the witnesses. 7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimants have filed the present appeal contending that the trial Judge has committed an error in relying upon the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, though the same has not been proved and the respondent No.2- insurance company has also not examined any witness before the Tribunal. Even though the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner. The respondent No.2 has categorically admitted the issuance of the policy and the deceased was third party. The Apex Court in number of cases has held that the insurance company has to examine the competent persons, in order to prove the fact that there was no valid driving license and permit. It is further contended that, merely because it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit, that does not ipso facto prove the case of the respondents without examining either the Investigating Officer or any competent authority. Hence, the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no valid driving license and permit and fastened the liability on the respondentNo.1-owner which requires interference of this Court. 9. It is also contended in the appeal that the trial Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years and she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing vegetable business. 9. It is also contended in the appeal that the trial Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years and she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing vegetable business. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation on the head of loss of dependency and awarded compensation only on the head of loss of estate taking 25% which is illegal and compensation awarded on the other heads is also meager and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in his argument vehemently contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation on the head of loss of dependency. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 connected with Civil Appeal No.244 of 2020 decided on 13.01.2020. The counsel relying upon this judgment, brought to our notice para Nos.13, 14 and 15 wherein, the Apex Court has held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The counsel would further contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation only on the head of loss of estate and not considering the compensation on the head of loss of dependency. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would contend that the respondent No.2-insurance company has not proved the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit and no witnesses have been examined before the Tribunal in this regard. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-insurance company would contend that the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability on the owner since, the owner had entrusted the vehicle to the driver, who was not having valid driving license and permit to drive the vehicle. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-insurance company would contend that the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability on the owner since, the owner had entrusted the vehicle to the driver, who was not having valid driving license and permit to drive the vehicle. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference of this Court. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsels for the respondent No.1-owner and respondent No.2-insurance company, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner, instead of respondent No.2-insurance company? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation only on the head of loss of estate and conventional heads and whether it requires interference of this Court to award compensation on the head of loss of dependency? (iii) What order? Point No.(i): 14. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also considering the factual matrix of the case, there is no dispute with regard to the accident and involvement of the vehicle in the accident. However, the only dispute is with regard to who is liable to pay the compensation. Admittedly, there was a policy as on the date of the accident. But, it is the specific pleading of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and permit. No doubt, the insurance company has not led any evidence, the Tribunal has committed an error in making a mention in the judgment that respondent No.2 examined one witness as R.W.1, though no witness has been examined. But, it is the respondent No.1-owner, who has examined himself as R.W.1. 15. It is to be noted that in the evidence of R.W.1 by way of chief examination, he attributes the negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a slow manner. But, it is the respondent No.1-owner, who has examined himself as R.W.1. 15. It is to be noted that in the evidence of R.W.1 by way of chief examination, he attributes the negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a slow manner. However, the Tribunal has given the finding that the accident is on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said finding has not been questioned by the respondent No.1-owner before this Court and the present appeal is filed by the claimants, who are sons and married daughter of the deceased, Obakka. 16. It is also pertinent to note that R.W.1-owner of the vehicle categorically admits in the cross-examination that he did not witness the accident, but only denies that no negligence on the part of the driver of his vehicle. He categorically admits that vehicle was standing in his name as on the date of the accident and that policy was in force and he got released the vehicle. 17. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurance company in the cross-examination got elicited that the police after investigation have filed charge sheet against him and also against the driver of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving license and permit to run the vehicle. He categorically admits that the driver was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident. 18. Having considered the admissions on the part of R.W.1, the very contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that mere filing of the charge sheet ipso facto is not a proof to fasten the liability on the owner cannot be accepted. R.W.1 himself has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there was no valid driving license and the police have filed the charge sheet after investigation against both of them on the ground that there was no valid driving license and permit to run the vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner is not erroneous. Admitted fact need not be proved. 19. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the claimants are claiming compensation for the death of their mother and the deceased is a third party. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the respondent No.1-owner is not erroneous. Admitted fact need not be proved. 19. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the claimants are claiming compensation for the death of their mother and the deceased is a third party. When such being the case, the Apex Court in Pappu’s case reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 and also in Shamanna’s case reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 has categorically held that when the claimants are third parties, the insurance company has to pay the compensation first and thereafter recover the same from the owner. Hence, in view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, we are of the opinion that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation first and thereafter, recover the same from the insured. Hence, we answer point No.(i) accordingly. Point No.(ii): 20. The second contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the Tribunal has awarded compensation only on the head of loss of estate and not awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency on the ground that the appellants are not dependants which is erroneous. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment referred supra. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that even the married daughter and sons have a right to apply for compensation as legal representatives. 21. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the claimants are the major sons and married daughter of the deceased. No doubt, in the judgment referred supra, the Apex Court has held that as legal representatives, they have right to apply for compensation other than conventional heads, we would like to refer the larger Bench judgment of the Apex Court consisting of five judges reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others, referring Sarla Varma’s case, the Apex Court has observed that mother alone will be considered as a dependant in a case of death of a bachelor and father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant. The Apex Court further held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 22. In the case on hand, the appellants would contend that even the brothers and married sister, who are major have a right to apply for compensation as legal representatives. When the larger Bench in the judgment referred supra has held that only the mother will be considered as a dependant, the question of awarding compensation to the appellants on the head of loss of dependency does not arise. However, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on the head of loss of estate by referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A. Manavalagan –vs- A. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 in addition to compensation under the head conventional heads. When such being the case, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency cannot be accepted. Hence, we answer point No. (ii) as ‘Negative’. Point No. (iii): 23. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 20.04.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.463/2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru is modified insofar as the liability is concerned directing the respondent No.2-insurance company to pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.1- insured. (iii) The respondent No.2 - insurance company is directed to pay the compensation within 4 weeks from today.