Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—Way back in the year 2003, an accident took place on 22nd July 2003, resulting in fatal injuries to Shakeel Ahmad Langoo, aged 15 years, who succumbed to injuries enroute, and on account of which, his parents filed a claim petition on 14th September 2006, diarised and registered as MAC no.22/2006, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama (for brevity “Tribunal”). After more than a decade (little less than eleven years), claim petition saw light of the day, when it was finally disposed of vide Award dated 23rd March 2017, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.5.26 Lacs to claimants/ respondents 1&2. It is this Award, of which appellant Insurance Company is aggrieved and seeks its setting-aside on the grounds enumerated in Appeal on hand. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through record of Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for appellant has stated, as is also maintained in present Appeal, that respondent no.3, i.e. driver of vehicle, was not having valid driving licence to drive vehicle at the time of accident. Appellant insists that it produced its official as a witness before Tribunal and proved that driver was not holding an effective driving licence as driving licence of driver bearing no.1498/R seized by police concerned at the time of accident was not renewed on the date of accident, i.e. 22nd July 2003. An application was filed before Tribunal for directing owner to produce documents as they were set ex parte and subsequently owner appeared and submitted his documents, like RC and FC and owner also made statement that driving licence of driver was not renewed on the date of accident and evidence of respondent was closed and the case was listed for final arguments. It is also avowed that during course of arguments, owner of vehicle moved an application along with fresh licence bearing no.1119990047226 dated 12th May 1999, which appellant Insurance Company objected, but Tribunal allowed application and framed a fresh issue regarding driving licence and onus was put upon owner to prove it. The owner moved an application for summoning ARTO, Rajouri, but he failed to produce witness. ARTO Rajouri sent a verification report, showing therein date of issue of licence as 12th September 1999 which was valid upto 5th July 2015. The owner moved an application for summoning ARTO, Rajouri, but he failed to produce witness. ARTO Rajouri sent a verification report, showing therein date of issue of licence as 12th September 1999 which was valid upto 5th July 2015. Appellant Insurance Company is stated to have objected the report on the ground that verification report does not bear breakup of renewals of driving licence and that driver cannot hold two driving licences. The owner failed to produce witness for examination despite number of opportunities. It is asserted that Tribunal has wrongly decided the Issue qua subsequent driving licence. Learned counsel for appellant while reiterating averments made in Appeal has stated that in terms of Section 6 of Motor Vehicles Act, a person cannot hold more than one driving licence at relevant time and that in the present case, two driving licences have been shown. It is also contended that compensation awarded by Tribunal is otherwise arbitrary, excessive and unjust inasmuch as Tribunal failed to appreciate that claimants have proved that deceased was a student of Class 8th and was not doing any job of loading sand permanently. Some of witnesses have stated that deceased used to work occasionally and not daily. It is also claimed that Tribunal is not justified in taking income of deceased as Rs.2500/- per month. Multiplier of 18 applied by Tribunal is also stated to be on higher side as multiplier of 13 would apply, given claimants having shown their age as 47 years. 4. Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and considered the matter. 5. Respondents 1&2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on 14th September 2006, which was diarised and registered as Claim Petition no.17/Claim. Before Tribunal, it was maintained by respondents 1&2 that deceased, namely, Shakeel Ahmad Langoo, who used to extract sand from river Rambi Ara along with other labourers and then loading the same on load carriers. 5. Respondents 1&2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on 14th September 2006, which was diarised and registered as Claim Petition no.17/Claim. Before Tribunal, it was maintained by respondents 1&2 that deceased, namely, Shakeel Ahmad Langoo, who used to extract sand from river Rambi Ara along with other labourers and then loading the same on load carriers. On 22nd July 2003, deceased, after loading vehicle with sand bearing Registration no.JK03-1341, was asked by its driver (respondent no.3 herein) to close the dalla of vehicle and while doing so, driver, all of a sudden drove vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which deceased fell down and dashed with a tree, resultantly deceased received fatal injuries; deceased was taken to Bijbehara Hospital but he succumbed to injuries enroute. According to respondents 1&2, deceased was a young boy of 15 years of age and was forced by circumstances to leave studies because of poverty. Deceased is stated to have been earning Rs.150/- per day. On the edifice of case set up, claimants/respondents 1&2 prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.8.90 Lacs. 6. Appellant Insurance Company caused its appearance before the Tribunal and filed written statement in opposition to claim petition of respondents 1&2, in which it was asserted that deceased was a minor boy of just 14 years and was a student of 7th Class and therefore, he was not earning anything before the date of alleged accident. It was also claimed by appellant Insurance Company that claimants/respondents 1&2 had not disclosed injuries, which led to death of deceased and that vehicle bearing Registration no.JK03-1341 was not involved in any accident on alleged date of accident. Appellant admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it. It was, however, at another place stated by appellant in its written statement that driver of vehicle was not holding effective driving licence and that compensation sought for by claimants was highly exorbitant. 7. The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, settled following Issues for adjudication: 1. Appellant admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it. It was, however, at another place stated by appellant in its written statement that driver of vehicle was not holding effective driving licence and that compensation sought for by claimants was highly exorbitant. 7. The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, settled following Issues for adjudication: 1. Whether on 22nd day of July, 2003, the deceased, who was loading the vehicle no.JK03/1341 with sand which was being driven by respondent no.1, who asked the deceased to close the “Dala” of the vehicle and while the deceased was closing the “Dal” the respondent No.3 driver all of sudden drove the vehicle due to which the deceased fell down, dashed with a tree and received fatal injuries to which he succumbed enroute to Bijbehara Hospital and the said accident took place with rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1? OPP 2. In case Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what extent of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether claim is not maintainable as petitioners have already filed a claim petition before Assistant Commissioner Labour which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution? 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence and was driving the vehicle without valid route permit band fitness certificate? OPR-3 5. Relief. 8. Claimants/respondents 1&2 produced and examined three witness; besides claimant no.2. Appellant Insurance Company produced one witness, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Wani, Legal Assistant, NIC, Divisional Office, Srinagar. 9. Star submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is that driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective driving licence as according to him two driving licences had been produced qua driver of offending vehicle. However, the Tribunal record speaks totally contrary to it. Perusal thereof divulges that owner and driver of offending vehicle (respondents 3&4) were set ex parte vide order dated 6th September 2007 as they did not turn up. After setting them ex parte, by order dated 13th March 2008, above quoted Issues were framed, including as to whether driver of offending vehicle was holding driving licence. Thereafter witnesses were produced and examined by claimants and Insurance Company. However, meanwhile, respondents 3&4 approached Tribunal on 14th August 2014 and it was by order dated 21st August 2014 that ex parte proceedings initiated against them were set-aside permitting them to participate in proceedings. Thereafter witnesses were produced and examined by claimants and Insurance Company. However, meanwhile, respondents 3&4 approached Tribunal on 14th August 2014 and it was by order dated 21st August 2014 that ex parte proceedings initiated against them were set-aside permitting them to participate in proceedings. Perusal of record also reveals that driver of offending vehicle moved an application on 27th November 2014 before the Tribunal, stating therein that at the time of accident he was possessing a valid and genuine driving licence, issued by ARTO Rajouri, which, according to him, was seized by police at the time of accident; and later deposited before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, with a challan. And after disposal of criminal challan by acquitting respondent no.4, he obtained copy of driving licence and submitted it before the Tribunal with his application. Not only this, he made an application seeking a direction in the name of ARTO, Rajouri, to be present before the Tribunal as a witness to depose vis-à-vis driving licence, but ARTO, did not turn up, though communication was addressed by it. As regards validity of driving licence of driver, the Tribunal discussed, at length, statement of witnesses, including that of appellant Insurance Company. Report of ARTO, Rajouri, contained in no.ARTO/R/2015/6816 dated 12th May 2015 submitted in compliance to order dated 7th May 2015, validating driving licence of respondent no.4, was also taken note of by Tribunal while deciding Issue no.4. The Tribunal, after a detailed discussion, decided and, rightly so, Issue no.4 in favour of claimants and against Insurance Company. 10. In addition to above, the Tribunal, while adjudicating upon Issue no.1, discussed witnesses’ statement, which led to conclusion that it was due to accident that resulted in death of Shakeel Ahmad Langoo, a 15 years’ old boy. 11. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, Issue no.2, with respect whereof had been framed, was also discoursed in depth and reference to judgements of the Supreme Court in this regard was also made by the Tribunal. Thus, contention of appellant Insurance Company that compensation granted by Tribunal is highly exorbitant, is specious. Tribunal has taken all facets of the matter into consideration, while computing compensation. Tribunal has kept in mind and applied law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Thus, contention of appellant Insurance Company that compensation granted by Tribunal is highly exorbitant, is specious. Tribunal has taken all facets of the matter into consideration, while computing compensation. Tribunal has kept in mind and applied law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 . In that view of matter, Issue no.2 has been rightly decided by Tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.5.26 Lacs in favour of claimants/respondents 1&2. In the above milieu, it is germane 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. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. 13. Record of the Tribunal be sent down along with copy of this judgment.