JUDGMENT : 1. The Insurance Company is the appellant and the appeal has been preferred against the Award of compensation in Claim Case No. 200/2002 by the District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh for the death of Sukhdeo Rajwar @ Pachu Rajwar in a motor vehicle accident involving a dumper bearing Registration No.BR-14-G-0060. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. 2. The owner, insurer and the driver of the offending vehicle have been impleaded as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. The Insurance Company in the written statement pleaded that the claimants have not filed the owner book, registration certificate, tax token certificate and fitness etc. and so they were not in a position to admit or deny the insurance of the vehicle. 3. A joint written statement has been filed by O.P. No.1 (Birendra Kumar Belthariya) and O.P. No.3 (Md. Meraj). In para-9 of the written statement it has been claimed that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license. 4. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact on enquiry. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years and taking Rs.6,550/- as the monthly income of the deceased as per the pay slip a compensation of Rs.5,88,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle against whom the charge-sheet has been submitted was not made party in this case. The driving license has been found by the investigator of the Insurance Company to be fake resulting in the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Investigation report submitted by the investigator Mr. P.P. Gupta on the point of driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been considered. The gross salary has been considered and not the net salary while computing the compensation amount. 6. On perusal of the F.I.R. (Exhibit-1) it transpires that Mandu P.S. Case No. 334 of 2002 was registered under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the Dumper bearing registration No. BR-14-G-0060 for the death of Sukhdeo Rajwar @ Pachu Rajwar in the motor vehicle accident. The police on investigation submitted chargesheet against Md. Meraj (Exhibit-2). The driving license of Md. The police on investigation submitted chargesheet against Md. Meraj (Exhibit-2). The driving license of Md. Meraj has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit-3 which has been filed on behalf of the claimants. 7. The Insurance Company has adduced into evidence Exhibit-A which is the investigation report with respect to the genuineness of effectiveness of the driving license standing in the name of Md. Meraj. As per the report the driving license bearing No. 7821/89 was found to be fake as it was originally issued in the name of one Sri Sudesh Yadav for a motor cycle. 8. It has been held in Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558 “The three-Judge Bench summed up its conclusions and we think it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the same: [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733], SCC pp. 341-42, para 110)” “110. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” 9. Here in the instant case no evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in engaging the driver so as to be held to be liable for willful breach of the terms of insurance policy. In the absence of any such evidence the owner can not be saddled with the liability on the ground that there had been breach of terms of insurance policy. 10. The deceased was an employee in Washery No. 2 as Mazdoor Category-4 in West Bokaro Colliery of Tata Steel Company. In the absence of any such evidence the owner can not be saddled with the liability on the ground that there had been breach of terms of insurance policy. 10. The deceased was an employee in Washery No. 2 as Mazdoor Category-4 in West Bokaro Colliery of Tata Steel Company. The pay slip has been marked as ‘X’ in which the net pay is Rs.6,550/- per month and the gross pay is Rs.9,119/-. However, compensation under future prospect has not been awarded. Accordingly, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation under the heading of future prospect by addition of 30% of the compensation amount awarded. The learned Court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,28,000/- on multiplier basis by taking a multiplier of 13 which should have been 14 as per the age of the deceased. Further, considering the number of dependents the deduction of 1/5th should have been made on the personal living expense of the deceased. The compensation amount shall accordingly work out as per the table given below: Annual Income Rs.7,000x12 Rs.84,000/- Annual dependency after deducting 1/5th on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs.67,200/- Taking multiplier of 14 considering the age of the deceased to be 45 years Rs.67,200 x 14 Rs.9,40,000 Future Prospect @ 30% Rs.2,82,240 Conventional head Rs.77,000 Total Rs 12,99,240 The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.12,99,240 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants in the manner given below: A. 50% of the total compensation amount to be paid to claimant no.1, B. 10% of the compensation amount to be paid to each of claimant nos. 2 to 6 jointly with claimant no.1, C. In case of the claimants below 21 years the amount to be fixed deposited till they attain the age of 21 years. With this modification in the compensation amount the appeal stands dismissed. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount.