JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 52 of 2005 by which the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,16,500/- to the claimants and directed the opposite party no. 1-Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs. 2,66,500/- plus interest on the same amount with the rate of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition as Rs. 50,000/- was earlier paid by the opposite party no. 1-Oriental Insurance Company under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.04.2005 when the deceased Vishnu Banra was going by his bicycle, he was dashed by the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven and Vishnu Banra succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, at the spot itself. 4. The truck was insured by the opposite party no. 1-appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited inter alia took the plea that the driver-Sarda Kumar Gope was originally issued with a driving licence from the Licensing Authority, Hazaribagh but on verification about the issuance of the original driving licence from the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh, it was found that no such driving licence was issued by the D.T.O. Hazaribagh and the owner of the vehicle knowingly appointed a driver who held fake driving licence and thus, the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; as such, the appellant-opposite party no. 1-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the issue no. 4 which reads as under: “Whether the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy for which the vehicle have been insured under the insurer?” 6. 1-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the issue no. 4 which reads as under: “Whether the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy for which the vehicle have been insured under the insurer?” 6. The learned Tribunal basing upon the Ext.A/1 which is the report submitted by the D.T.O. Chaibasa to the investigator engaged by the appellant-insurance company and other materials came to the conclusion that the offending truck was being driven by a person who had valid driving licence issued by the competent authority to drive the heavy vehicle, hence, there is no such violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased on the basis of postmortem report to be 50 years and assessed his monthly income to be Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 13 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the victim, the annual dependency arrived at was Rs. 24,000/- and after multiplying the same with the multiplier 13 and adding Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of estate, the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of Rs. 3,16,500/- and after deducting Rs. 50,000/- which was paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act as ad interim compensation awarded a total net amount of Rs. 2,66,500/- to be paid by the appellant-insurance company. 7. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the method adopted by the Tribunal in computing and assessing and awarding the compensation is unknown to the provision of law as well as motor vehicle rules. It is then submitted by Mr. Jha that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the claimants has not disclosed that the deceased has left with no other dependant. It is then submitted by Mr. It is then submitted by Mr. Jha that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the claimants has not disclosed that the deceased has left with no other dependant. It is then submitted by Mr. Jha that as in the additional written statement, the appellant-insurance company has taken a specific plea that the driving licence of the driver Sarda Kumar Gope originally issued by the Licensing Authority, Hazaribagh but on verification from the office of District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh, it was found that no such driving licence has been issued in the name of Sarda Kumar Gope by the Licensing Authority, Hazaribagh during the year 1991 and the District Transport Officer has also issued verification report to the effect that the driving licence is fake and also the appellant-insurance company pleaded that the owner of the vehicle deliberately engaged driver who do not have any valid driving licence, the Tribunal ought to have held that there is violation of the insurance policy and ought to have absolved the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation amount. In support of his contention, that the original license being a fake one, the renewal of the same cannot cure the inherent fatalities, Mr. Jha relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal and Others, 2007 (2) T.A.C. 417 (SC) : 2007 (3) Supreme 136 , paragraph no. 14 of which reads as under: “14. It is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. The whole protection provided by Chapter XI of the Act is against third party risk. Therefore, in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to the Swaran Singh (supra) ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 (4) SCALE 36 . This Court after referring to Swaran Singh (supra) and discussing the law summed up the position thus: “In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: 1. The decision in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. 2. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 (4) SCALE 36 . This Court after referring to Swaran Singh (supra) and discussing the law summed up the position thus: “In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: 1. The decision in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. 2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. 3. In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. 4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the mater afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above.” We are in respectful agreement with the above view.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside and the appellant-insurance company be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the calculation of the compensation on the basis of multiplier method in a case of death of a person arising out of use of the motor vehicle, is an established method of calculation of such compensation and as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in calculation of the amount of compensation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the dispute that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased and were dependent upon him. So, there is no illegality in awarding the compensation. So far as the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle namely Sarda Kumar Gope is concerned, drawing attention of this Court to Ext.A/1 which is the document filed by the opposite party no. 1-insurance company in the Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.A/1 is the letter issued by the District Transport Officer, Chaibasa West Singhbhum to none other than the investigator engaged by the insurance company and from the same driving licence no. 1-insurance company in the Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.A/1 is the letter issued by the District Transport Officer, Chaibasa West Singhbhum to none other than the investigator engaged by the insurance company and from the same driving licence no. 2491/88 is confirmed and as per the said report, the said driving licence, held by the Sarda Kumar Gope, was valid from 09.01.2004 to 08.01.2007 and the accident having been taken place on 12.04.2005 so, on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Regarding the documents which has been marked Ext.A/2/2 which is purported to be a letter issued by the D.T.O. Hazaribagh, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the same is in respect of the driving licence no. 1807/F/91, and not in respect of the driving license of the driver concerned bearing no. 2491/88. It is further submitted that as the insurance company itself obtained an information from the D.T.O. Chaibasa where the driving licence of the driver Shri Sharda Kumar Gope was mentioned as 2491/88, with an ulterior motive, the insurance company and the investigator engaged by it with a fraudulent intention obtained an information in respect of a different licence number and has come up with a fraudulent case that the licence of the driver Sarda Kumar Gope is fake, with the sole purpose of misleading the court. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the date of Ext.A/1 is 16.12.2005 and the date of Ext.A/2/1 is 09.03.2006. So it is apparent that when the appellant-insurance company was knowing pretty well on 16.12.2005, that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence no. 2491/88, the appellant-insurance company with an ulterior and mala fide intention has misled the court with a false plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake licence; just to make out a false case to save it from paying the compensation amount. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the driving licence of the driver Sarda Kumar Gope was fake. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that fraudulent activities of the appellant-insurance company did not end there. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the driving licence of the driver Sarda Kumar Gope was fake. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that fraudulent activities of the appellant-insurance company did not end there. Again the appellant-insurance company apparently sought an information from the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh through one R.P. Singh as is evident from Ext.A/2/2 in respect of another driving licence bearing no. 1807/F/91 dated 12.06.2006 and got a report that the said licence has not been issued by the office of District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the document marked Ext.A/1 of the insurance company dated 16.12.2005, the insurance company was very much aware that the driving licence of the driver being 2491/88, it remains incongruous as to why the insurance company have tried to make out a false case by obtaining information regarding two different driving licence which has got nothing to do with the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle namely Sarda Kumar Gope being issued with the driving licence no. 2491/88 and obtained information that such driving licence has not been issued by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for determination crop up in this appeal: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in computing the amount of compensation? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred by awarding the compensation to the claimants? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion of the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sarda Kumar Gope was having a valid driving licence? 11. So far as the first point for determination is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that computation of the compensation amount on the basis of application of multiplier method is a well-established principle, in case of death of any person by use of motor vehicle. Thus, this Court do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the method adopted by the Tribunal in computing the amount of compensation is unknown to the provisions of law. Thus, this Court do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the method adopted by the Tribunal in computing the amount of compensation is unknown to the provisions of law. Hence, the first point for determination is answered in the negative. 12. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the claimants are the legal representatives and dependant upon the deceased. Under such undisputed facts certainly, the claimants are entitled to the compensation to be paid arising out of the death of the deceased in a motor accident. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding the compensation to the claimants. Therefore the second point for determination is also answered in the negative. 13. So far as the third point for determination as to whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sarda Kumar Gope was having a valid driving licence on the date of compensation is concerned, Ext.A/1 is the document of the insurance company and vide Ext.A/1, the District Transport Officer, Singhbhum (West) Chaibasa has intimated the investigator engaged by the appellant-insurance company that the driving licence of the driver Shri Sarda Kumar Gope was 2491/88 and the same was valid from 09.01.2004 to 08.01.2007. So it is crystal clear from Ext.A which is the report submitted by the said investigator to the Branch Manager of the appellant-insurance company dated 25.01.2006, that the appellant-insurance company on 25.01.2006 was very much aware that the driving licence no. 2491/88 was the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle. It remains incongruous as to why the appellant-insurance company instead of seeking any information from the D.T.O. Hazaribagh regarding the driving licence no. 2491/88 sought information regarding two different driving licence one in respect of driving licence no. 1803/F/81 dated 09.03.2006 which has been marked as Ext.A/2/1 and the another in respect of the driving licence no. 1807/F/91/Hazaribagh dated 12.06.2006 which driving licence had got nothing to do with the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sardu Kumar Gope. The learned counsel for the appellant at the hearing of this appeal, also could not explain this conduct of the appellant. 1807/F/91/Hazaribagh dated 12.06.2006 which driving licence had got nothing to do with the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sardu Kumar Gope. The learned counsel for the appellant at the hearing of this appeal, also could not explain this conduct of the appellant. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Hence, the third point for determination is also answered in the negative. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith. 16. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount if any deposited by the appellant to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.