Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—United India Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Award dated 8th February 2018, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, (for short “Tribunal”), on a Claim Petition no.15 of 2013 titled Gh. Nabi Ganie and others v. United India Insurance Company and another, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.9,19,000/- along with simple interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till final realization, on the grounds mentioned in Appeal on hand. 2. Heard and considered. 3. According to learned counsel for appellant, learned Tribunal has erred in passing impugned Award as driver of offending vehicle (respondent no.6) was not having valid and effective licence on the date of occurrence and in this regard appellant Insurance Company produced a witness as well, who documented the said submission of appellant and, therefore, primarily it is liability of owner of vehicle (respondent no.3) to pay compensation to victims of accident and not that of Insurance Company. Next submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is that impugned Award is excessive and unjust. According to him, learned Tribunal has committed an error by not applying rule properly resulting in passing of impugned Award on higher side inasmuch as Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs.6000/- and deducted 1/4th as deceased having two minor kids and wife and that respondent 1&2 are not dependents. The Tribunal is stated to have wrongly applied multiplier of 16 instead of 15 while calculating compensation; the Tribunal is also stated to have erred in awarding 6.5% interest on award amount instead of 6% as adopted by the Supreme Court as also by this Court. 4. Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal. 5. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming that death of Fayaz Ahmad Ganie, was caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. According to claimants, monthly income of deceased was from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. Appellant Insurance Company submitted written statement, in which it is admitted that interests of owner of offending vehicle was covered under policy of insurance, issued by it. According to claimants, monthly income of deceased was from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. Appellant Insurance Company submitted written statement, in which it is admitted that interests of owner of offending vehicle was covered under policy of insurance, issued by it. Appellant also averred in its written statement that driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Respondent no.6 (owner of vehicle) also filed written statement, in which he averred that driver of offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 7. The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, vide order dated 30th April 2010, settled following issues for trial: 1. Whether on 11.12.2012 a vehicle (Van) bearing Regd. No.CHOIAJ12881 being driven by deceased on the correct side of the road at normal speed, suddenly a Santro Vehicle bearing Regd. No. JK05B/3174 coming from Srinagar towards Baramulla driven by respondent No. 2 very rashly and negligently and when reached at Turgund, the driver lost control over his vehicle and hit the vehicle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased namely Fayaz Ahmad. Ganie, suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 13.12.2012? (OPP) 2. Whether the owner/driver of the offending vehicle ply the said vehicle without valid, effective DL & other vehicular documents which is violation of policy conditions, if yes, the insured has committed the breach of insurance contract, absolved respondent No.1 insurance company from its liability on account of petitioners claim? (OPR-1) 3. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? (OPP) 4. Relief 8. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 and Appellant-Insurance Company produced and examined their witnesses in support of their respective claim(s). Claimants also produced documentary evidence, viz. copy of FIR, I/C, D/L and cause of death certificate issued by SMHS Hospital, Srinagar. 9. Qua Issue no.1, viz. death caused by accident, claimants proved and established the same and, accordingly, Issue no.1 was decided in favour of claimants. 10. As regards Issue no.2, i.e., whether owner/driver of offending vehicle had no valid/effective driving licence, onus thereof was placed on Appellant Insurance Company. The Tribunal discussed the Issue coherently. To decide Issue no.2, the Tribunal banked upon judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. 10. As regards Issue no.2, i.e., whether owner/driver of offending vehicle had no valid/effective driving licence, onus thereof was placed on Appellant Insurance Company. The Tribunal discussed the Issue coherently. To decide Issue no.2, the Tribunal banked upon judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (3) SCC 297 , in which the Supreme Court said that if it was found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes, like mechanical failures and similar other causes, have no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. Insofar as case in hand is concerned, it is mentioned in the Award that driver of offending was holding a driving licence for plying a vehicle of higher category than was being plied by him at the relevant time of accident and he seems to have gained more experience in driving and it was only for this reason that driver of offending vehicle was granted driving licence of vehicle of higher category inasmuch as it was not proved by evidence by Insurance Company that holding of driving of licence of higher category of vehicle was the cause of accident. Accordingly, Issue no.2 was decided in favour of claimants and against appellant Insurance Company. 11. It is imperative to add that there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” [Vide: K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274 ]. 12. In the present case, appellant Insurance Company maintains that the Tribunal has exorbitantly granted compensation and that deduction of 1/4th made by Tribunal from the income of deceased has been wrongly applied as respondents 1&2 are not dependent upon deceased. These submissions are specious and misconceived. The Tribunal assessed income of deceased on the basis of unshaken evidence produced before it. These submissions are specious and misconceived. The Tribunal assessed income of deceased on the basis of unshaken evidence produced before it. The court of first instance, viz. Tribunal, was in a better position to appreciate oral testimony that was available before it, while it assessed computations on various heads on the basis of evidence and as a result thereof computed compensation in favour of claimants, that is correct on all counts. My above views, observations and finding are fortified by a judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd and others, 2020 (3) SCC 57 . 13. It is well-settled that legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Even major, married and earning legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider application irrespective of the fact whether concerned legal representative is fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit claim towards conventional heads only. Reference in this regard is made to National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, AIR 2020 SC 434 . 14. In the backdrop of averments made in Appeal, it may be pertinent to mention here that it has been emphasised over and over again that “just compensation” should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before occurrence of accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, by which society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives. 15. Insofar as interest part is concerned, there is substance in submission of learned counsel for appellant. The Tribunal has wrongly applied 6.5% interest. There shall be interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim till final realisation. To that extent impugned Award is set-aside and modified. 16. There is also substance in the submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16 instead of 15. To that extent as well Award is set-aside and modified. 17. To that extent impugned Award is set-aside and modified. 16. There is also substance in the submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16 instead of 15. To that extent as well Award is set-aside and modified. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. As a corollary thereof, the multiplier, as discussed herein above, is fixed as 15. By applying multiplier of 15 to the multiplicand of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4500x12), the total loss of income is worked out as Rs.8,10,000.00. The said amount of Rs.8,10,000/- is awarded as compensation in favour of claimants/respondents. Compensation on other “heads”, awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unchanged and sharing of compensation amongst claimants as said by the Tribunal is also not interfered with and, therefore, remains unchanged. Hence, the total compensation is worked as 8.65 Lakhs (Rs.8,10,000.00 + Rs.40,000.00 + Rs.15,000.00). Respondents/claimants are awarded a total sum of Rs.8.65 Lakhs inclusive of interim relief, with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim till final realisation. 18. Disposed of. 19. Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgment.