JUDGMENT : Heard Mr S Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr A T Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 79/2015, by awarding a compensation amounting to Rs. 7,99,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand) only in favour of the respondents/claimants. 3. The factum of accident has not been challenged in the case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the owner/driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident was not having valid driving licence in his name. The Insurance Company adduced evidence of one Debojit Borkotoky, who in his evidence stated that the driving licence was in the name of one Sahidul Islam and not in the name of Amar Biswas, the driver of the offending vehicle. The said witness exhibited the letter of DTO, Nalbari, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and came to an erroneous finding that the appellant has failed to prove that the owner/driver had not possessed valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident, in his name and as such, the impugned Judgment and Award is liable to be set aside. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case-laws:- 1. (2008) 3 SCC 193 ; (Prem Kumari & Ors. –Vs- Prahlad Deb & Ors.) 2) (GHC) MAC Appeal No. 329/2017; (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.–Vs-Smt. Malina Basumatary & 2 Ors.) 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company also contended that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the Insurance Company may be given the liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by following the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. –Vs-Nanjappan & Ors; reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224 . 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and I have also gone through the Judgment of the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has considered the submissions of the Insurance on the allegation of fake driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and I have also gone through the Judgment of the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has considered the submissions of the Insurance on the allegation of fake driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the said judgment, it is mentioned that the driving licence has not been produced before the trial Court. The Insurance Investigator as DW-1, has proved the signature of DTO, Nalbari, in a letter, issued to the witness, i.e., Insurance Investigator, but none has come from DTO, Nalbari, to prove Exhibit-A, i.e., the letter of the DTO, Nalbari. As the witness (DW-1) has admitted that he has failed to submit copy of driving license, as such the Insurer has failed to prove that the driver had no valid licence in his name and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. From the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving licence, at the relevant time of accident. 7. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. –vs Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 2 97, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that defence of licence held by the person driving the vehicle was fake, is available to Insurance Company, but insurer has to establish willful breach on part of the insurer, which has to be determined in each case. 8. In another case, United India Insurance Co. 8. In another case, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. –vs- Lehru; reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338 , it was observed that the owner at the time of hiring a driver has to check as to whether driver possesses a driving licence, if the driver produces a driving licence, which on the face of it appears to be genuine, then the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has actually been issued by the competent authority or not; if the owner finds that the driver is competent enough, then he will hire the driver, therefore, it was observed that where the owner has satisfied himself that driver has a licence and is driving competently, then there would be no breach of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act; then the Insurance Company will not be absolved of its liability, even if the driving licence ultimately turns out to be fake, unless and until, it is proved that the owner/insured was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and despite that, the driver was allowed to drive the vehicle. 9. The question was again considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation –Vs-National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 , wherein after noticing Lehru’s case, Swaran Singh’s case and Laxmi Dutt’s case it was observed as under:- "In a claim for compensation it is certainly open to the insurer u/s 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver if satisfies in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver if satisfies in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of the insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence dully verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take the appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's Case (Supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation". 10. The above judgments were considered by the learned Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh –Vs-Rajaram; reported in (2018) 8 SCC 799 . 11. Reverting back to the present case, though it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid/effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident, but the copy of said driving licence is not available in the record. In support of the fact of having fake driving licence, one witness was examined by the Insurance Company. 12. DW-1,Debojit Borkakoty deposed in his evidence that he was working as an Investigator in National Insurance Company Limited. He filed an application before DTO, Nalbari, to obtain a report regarding driving licence vide No. 1505/NB/08/MISC and he received a report from DTO that the said driving licence was issued in the name of Sahidul Islam, but not in the name of Amar Biswas. He filed an application before DTO, Nalbari, to obtain a report regarding driving licence vide No. 1505/NB/08/MISC and he received a report from DTO that the said driving licence was issued in the name of Sahidul Islam, but not in the name of Amar Biswas. The letter of DTO, Nalbari was proved as Exhibit-A. In his cross-examination, DW-1 replied that he met the driver/owner of the vehicle, but he did not obtain copy of driving licence. None had come from DTO, Nalbari to prove Exhibit-A. Policy of vehicle was valid at the relevant time of accident. 13. From the evidence of DW-1, it reveals that he had failed to collect driving licence from the owner/driver of the vehicle. As such, as the driving licence was not produced before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the driver had not possessed any effective or valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. Hence, the allegation of fake driving licence is not proved. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 14. It is seen from the Judgment of the learned Tribunal that Rs. 7,99,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand) Only was awarded as compensation, in favour of the claimant. After going through the evidence and other documents available in the MAC Case No. 79/2015, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, needs some modification. 15. Regarding income of the deceased, according to the claimant as well as claim petition, he was a contractor by profession and also doing business and he used to earn Rs. 15,000/-per month, but no document is available on the record regarding the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-per month, which I find is reasonable and is not on the higher side as an unskilled labour. 16. 15,000/-per month, but no document is available on the record regarding the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-per month, which I find is reasonable and is not on the higher side as an unskilled labour. 16. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors., Reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in a case of self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years; an addition of 25%, where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and 10%, where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. 17. In the instant case, as per claim petition, the deceased was 48 years of age, when the accident took place. The claimant has not filed any document regarding age of the deceased. As per PM report, the deceased was 50 years of age, when the accident took place. As no other documents is available on record to ascertain the age of the deceased, the age shown in the PM Report can be taken into consideration in this case. Hence, an addition of 25% should be added along with his established income of Rs. 5,000/-. As such, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 5,000+ Rs. 1,250/-(25%) = Rs. 6,250/- 18. As the age of the deceased was 50 years at the relevant time of accident, as per the Judgment of Sarala Verma–Vs-DTC; reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier would be 13. 19. In the instant case, the deceased has left behind four dependants. As such, the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma(supra), as such one-fourth of income is required to be deducted with the presumption that if the deceased would have been alive, he could have spent three-fourth for his personal and living expenses. 20. As per the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-respectively. 20. As per the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-respectively. As per the impugned judgment, the aforesaid amount shall be enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years. Hence, the amount of loss of estate and funeral expenses would come to Rs. 16,500/-on each count and loss of consortium as Rs. 44,000/-. 21. In view of the above discussion, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows- A. Annual income of the deceased-Rs. 6250 x 12 Rs. 75,000/- B. After deducting one-fourth of the income of the deceased, the amount comes to- Rs. 56,250/- C. After multiplied with multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 56,250/-x 13 Rs. 7,31,250/-. D. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- E. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/- F. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Total – Rs. 8,08,250/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) only 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of 8,08,250/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) only, in the savings account of the claimant/wife, Smti Jamuna Mandal through NEFT. The amount of compensation shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. The Insurance Company is directed to discharge the liability of the award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The claimant/wife, Smt Jamuna Mandal is directed to furnish her bank details of any nationalized bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment. The amount of compensation, if any, paid earlier, be adjusted accordingly. 23. Send down the LCR. 24. Statutory amount in deposit be refunded to the Insurance Company.