JUDGMENT B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant - insurance company challenging the order dated 04.06.2009 in OP.No.1530 of 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FAC) cum III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the husband/father of the claimants in a motor accident dated 13.11.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Qualis bearing No. AP 31 X 3320. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is its insurer. The claim was partly allowed by the tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.9,24,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company confined his submission only to quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal below. He submits that the deceased was a petty businessman, as such, the income of Rs.7,500/- per month taken by the tribunal below is on the higher side. Therefore, the tribunal had erroneously awarded the compensation of Rs.9,24,000/-. Learned counsel also submitted that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence. 5. On a perusal of the order of the tribunal below, it is evident that according to the claimants, the deceased was doing business of making plastic covers for books, diaries, plastic document covers, book binding etc. and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. P.W.1 also produced Exs.A7 and A8 which are income tax saral forms. Hence, the income of the deceased was rightly taken by the tribunal below at Rs.7,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expense, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. The tribunal below applied multiplier 15.15 for the age of the deceased at 34 years. However, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased, being 34 years, is 16'. Hence, the loss of future earnings would come to Rs.60,000/- x 16 = Rs.9,60,600/- (the tribunal below awarded Rs.9,09,000/-). 6. However, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased, being 34 years, is 16'. Hence, the loss of future earnings would come to Rs.60,000/- x 16 = Rs.9,60,600/- (the tribunal below awarded Rs.9,09,000/-). 6. Further, even if the deceased was a petty businessman i.e. self - employed and by conservative standards, if his income is fixed at Rs.5,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, and future prospects at 40% is added by applying the ratio laid down in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants would be entitled to a much higher compensation that what was awarded by the tribunal below. 7. As regards the violation of policy conditions, on account of the driver of the offending vehicle not holding valid driving licence, the insurance company cannot escape the liability fastened on it and the insurance company is liable to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle as per the decision of the Supreme Court in MANUARA KHATUN v. RAJESH KR. SINGH, (2017) 4 SCC 796 . Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal below. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.