Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—New India Assurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of a composite Award dated 30th November 2013, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, (for short “Tribunal”), on two Claim Petitions, bearing no.06 of 2008 titled Ghulam Mohammad Wani and others v. Shabir Ahmad Mir and others, and no.07 of 2008 titled Hajra Begum and others v. Shabir Ahmad Mir and another, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.3.00 Lacs in Claim Petition no.06 of 2008 and Rs.5.10 Lacs in Claim Petition no.07 of 2008, and interest @ 6% in both claim petitions has been granted from the date of institution of claim petition till final realization, on the grounds tailored in memoranda of Appeals on hand. 2. I have gone through the file and considered the matter. 3. The Appeals are taken up and decided in ad seriatim. MA no.61/2014 4. It is averred in the present Appeal that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 14 on the ground that deceased was a bachelor and survived by his parents, whose age ranged from 40 to 50 years. He has also averred that on account of admission made by claimants in their claim petition that deceased was a labourer, it was incumbent upon them to have procured a separate policy covering the risk of drivers associated with subject vehicle and on account of such type of policy, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to fasten appellant Insurance Company with liability. The Tribunal is said to have not considered the evidence led by claimants in correct perspective and that statement of father of deceased has been totally ignored who in unequivocal terms has stated that deceased was engaged as labourer with Gas Agency and they did not link deceased as conductor or cleaner working with offending vehicle. The failure on the part of Tribunal to appreciate and evaluate evidence in its correct perspective has effect of nullifying the Award insofar as it relates mulcting appellant Insurance Company with liability. The deceased, as is stated in Appeal, had to be treated as gratis passenger and unauthorised occupant, not entitled to travel in vehicle and same has to be construed as breach of policy stipulation committed by owner of vehicle and, therefore, entitling appellant Insurance Company to seek exoneration. 5. The deceased, as is stated in Appeal, had to be treated as gratis passenger and unauthorised occupant, not entitled to travel in vehicle and same has to be construed as breach of policy stipulation committed by owner of vehicle and, therefore, entitling appellant Insurance Company to seek exoneration. 5. Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal. 6. Respondents 1&2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, diarised and registered as Claim Petition no.06 of 2008. In addition to this, as said above, another Claim Petition no.07 of 2008 was also filed. Both claim petitions were taken together and decided vide impugned Award. Respondents 1&2 claimed compensation of Rs.22.50 Lacs as according to them deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, who died at the age of 22 years. Written statement was filed by other-side in opposition to claim petition before the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, settled following Issues as common Issues in both claim petitions, for trial: 1. Whether on 01.12.2007 the deceased Mudasir Ahmad Wani aged 22 years S/o Gh. Mohammad Wani (petitioner no.2) R/o Dulatpora Kerrio Baramulla, being under the employment of respondent no.1 was working as labour with the vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no.JK05-5084 that was on its way from Nabla to Uri and while it reached Najamore, the vehicle fell into a deep gorge, resulting in death of the deceased as well as the driver on spot for which a case in P/S Uri under FIR no.132 under Section 279, 304A, 427 RPC has been registered? OPP 2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable since the deceased cannot be said to be a third party within the meaning of M.V. Act? OPR-2 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the answering respondent? OPR 4. Whether a highly exaggerated compensation has been claimed by the petitioners? OPR-2 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation to what extent and from whom? OPP 8. Claimants/respondents 1&2 produced and examined five witnesses, besides claimant/respondent no.1. Appellant Insurance company produced and examined only one witness. 9. Insofar as Issue no.1, viz. OPR 4. Whether a highly exaggerated compensation has been claimed by the petitioners? OPR-2 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation to what extent and from whom? OPP 8. Claimants/respondents 1&2 produced and examined five witnesses, besides claimant/respondent no.1. Appellant Insurance company produced and examined only one witness. 9. Insofar as Issue no.1, viz. deceased, Mudasir Ahmad Wani, being under employment, was working as labour with vehicle TATA 407, bearing Registration no.JK05-5084, which was on its way from Nabla to Uri and while it reached Najamore, it fell into a deep gorge, resulting in death of the deceased as well as driver on spot, is concerned; the Tribunal held that sufficient cause was shown by claimants to file claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and, accordingly, decided Issue no.1 in favour of claimants. 10. Qua Issue no.2, i.e. whether claim petition is not maintainable since deceased cannot be said to be a third party within meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, the onus to prove the same was upon appellant Insurance Company. As is noticeable from the Award, it is mentioned therein that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a different scheme while assessing compensation and only those petitions are filed under the said Section where driver himself has died in the accident inasmuch as element of negligence and rash driving as is required ordinarily to be provided in petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on fault basis, need not be proved. It is also mentioned in the Award that it is proved that driver of vehicle, namely, Mohammad Amin Malik, as well as cleaner, namely, Mudasir Ahmad, died in accident and it is proved that the said vehicle, they were plying, was of a gas agency (Bombay Gas Agency) and their case, therefore, is covered under relevant provisions of law and Section 167 gives an option to claimants either to seek remedy under Workmen’s Compensation Act while claiming compensation or under Motor Vehicles Act. It is also mentioned in the Award that while looking into testimony of witness of appellant Insurance Company, namely, Ravi Ji, it comes to fore that deceased, Mudasir Ahmad, was found during investigation to have been engaged as labourer with the said vehicle, corroborating case of claimants as being cleaner of vehicle. It is also mentioned in the Award that while looking into testimony of witness of appellant Insurance Company, namely, Ravi Ji, it comes to fore that deceased, Mudasir Ahmad, was found during investigation to have been engaged as labourer with the said vehicle, corroborating case of claimants as being cleaner of vehicle. During cross examination before Tribunal, witness of appellant Insurance Company deposed that insurance policy covered drivers, cleaner and third party and that vehicle was load carrier 407, and invariably in such vehicles, driver/ cleaner are insured. Once that being the position, Tribunal decided Issue no.2 against appellant Insurance Company. 11. Insofar as Issue no.3, i.e. whether driver of vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, is concerned; burden to prove the same was on appellant Insurance Company. It, however, did not produce any witness from RTO office concerned or licencing clerk, who could have been better witness to state all about genuineness of licence, nor any record produced before the Tribunal. Appellant Insurance Company produced one witness, who admitted that insurance policy covered risk vis-à-vis driver and cleaner as also third party and in such situation the same covered case of deceased persons as well. The Tribunal has comprehensively discoursed Issue no.3 and made reference to judgement rendered in New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Latha Jyaraj II (1991) ACC 303, in which it has been held that a person who holds learner’s licence is also duly licenced within meaning of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal decided Issue no.3 against appellant Insurance Company. 12. It is imperative to add here 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 ]. 13. 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 ]. 13. 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. In that view of matter, Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.3.00 Lacs along with interest @ 6% interest and therefore, Award need not be interfered with. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. CMAM no.62/2014 15. In this Appeal it is maintained that deceased, namely, Mohammad Amin Malik, had himself caused accident and he was charged for negligent driving by concerned police on the strength of FIR and therefore his legal heirs would not claim indemnification by taking recourse to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, which in fact relates to according of benefit to third parties and not to the person who is himself involved in the accident or who has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted in accident. This aspect of the matter, according to appellant, has been ignored by the Tribunal. It is also stated that Tribunal has failed to consider the effect of non-securing of workmen compensation policy by owner of offending vehicle and the only remedy, available to legal heirs of deceased, was to seek indulgence of Workmen Compensation Commissioner for grant of compensation and that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier which needs to be reduced. 16. It is pertinent to mention here, as pointed out herein above as well, that the Tribunal while deciding Issue no.1, has methodically taken into account statements of witnesses adduced by claimants/respondents as also documentary evidence before it, which corroborated death caused by accident. 16. It is pertinent to mention here, as pointed out herein above as well, that the Tribunal while deciding Issue no.1, has methodically taken into account statements of witnesses adduced by claimants/respondents as also documentary evidence before it, which corroborated death caused by accident. Issue no.2 qua maintainability of claim petition has also been exhaustively discoursed by the Tribunal. It is mentioned in the Award: that driver and cleaner died in accident; that the case was covered under relevant provisions of law; that section 167 gives an option to claimants either to seek remedy under Workmen’s Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicles Act; and that claimants have chosen to file claim petitions, to which no fault can be found. Issue no.3, as discussed above, has also been rightly decided against appellant Insurance Company. Insofar as calculation is concerned, the same also need not to interfered with. Having said that, impugned Award does not call for any interference by this Court and as a corollary thereof, Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. For the reasons discussed above, Appeal is dismissed. 18. Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgment.