JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – insurance company (original opponent No.2), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.704 of 2001, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,72,250/- with 12% p.a. interest to the claimant, holding opponent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver-cum-owner and insurer liable, jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 On 14.08.2001, the claimant was going on the Mangrol – Keshod road. When he reached near Jaysing Bhagat’s form, one motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-1-NN-8027, which was driven by opponent No.1 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with claimant, who was walking on the road and thereafter, the claimant had fallen down and dragged with the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries on the scull and also had haemorrhage and sustained other injuries like fracture. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. by doing work as Police Sub-Inspector in C.I.D. Department. Due to the haemorrhage, he has received permanent disability. 2.2 Thereafter, a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimant to get the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 2.3 The Tribunal has issued notices to the opponents though served. Opponent No.1 has not appeared. Opponent No.2 has appeared through its advocate and filed its written statement at Exh.14 by disputing all the averments made in the claim petition. 2.4 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.24 for its determination. Thereafter, the claimant has deposed at Exh.42, who was also cross-examined by insurance company. Thereafter, the Tribunal has recorded documentary evidence; like F.I.R. at Exh.26, Panchnama at Exh.27, report about accident at Exh.28, charge-sheet filed against opponent No.2 at Exh.29, injuries caused to claimant at Exh.30, pay-slip of claimant at Exh.33, disability certificate issued by Gokul Hospital, Rajkot at Exh.32, insurance policy at Exh.34 and driving licence at Exh.44, etc. 2.5 After considering the submissions and documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, as noted above. 2.5 After considering the submissions and documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, as noted above. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the present appeal for enhancement in the awarded amount by the Tribunal. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the appellant – insurance company has submitted that the driver of motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Further, he has submitted that the date of licence is 22.10.2004 and the licence seems to be valid from 06.10.2001 to 05.10.2021 and he has submitted that the accident was occurred on 14.08.2001, therefore, admittedly the driving licence, which is produced on record by the claimant is valid for the subsequent period from the date of accident, therefore, it cannot be said that driver of the motorcycle was possessing any valid and effective driving licence. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of (i) Mahmad Rafik Munnebhai Ansari Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. rendered in First Appeal No.3173 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara & two Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.2180 of 2012 dated 18.01.2022 (iii) New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Arjanbhai Hansrajbhai Dawariya & two Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.3599 of 2013 dated 11.03.2022, in the above judgments this Court has taken view that insurance company cannot be held liable when there is no licence. 3.2 Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 15, which is as per his submission and since the claimant is a Government employee and he is not proving any future loss to his income then the multiplier cannot be awarded more than 5 and he has relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of in the case of Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas Vs. Ismail Ibrahim & Suleman Ibrahim rendered in First Appeal No.705 of 2012 dated 11.04.2012, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding multiplier, therefore, he has prayed that the present appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ismail Ibrahim & Suleman Ibrahim rendered in First Appeal No.705 of 2012 dated 11.04.2012, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding multiplier, therefore, he has prayed that the present appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the respondent Nos.1 and 1.3 has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the liability of the insurance company as the Tribunal has considered the copy of the driving licence, which is produced on record. Further, it is undisputed fact that the accident is occurred on 14.08.2001 and looking to the copy of the licence, which is original licnece (Pakka licence) to drive the transport vehicle, which is commencing from 06.10.2010 that is almost about one and a half month later from the date of accident but he has drawn my attention when any licence issued either transport vehicle or non-transport vehicle then prior to that the person has to obtain leaning licence (katcha licence) and normally validity of the learning driving licence is six month and as per the rules of R.T.O., the person, who is holding leaning licence can apply for original driving licence (pakka) after period of one month and before period of six months from the date of issuance of learning licence, therefore, he has submitted that it can certainly be presumed that the driver must be having learning driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the period between the accident and the date of driving licence is about 50 days, therefore, looking to the rules of R.T.O. about original (pakka) driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the period between the accident and the date of driving licence is about 50 days, therefore, looking to the rules of R.T.O. about original (pakka) driving licence at the time of accident. Further, he has submitted that the insurance company has not proved this contention of not holding valid and effective driving licence by examining any person from the R.T.O. More particularly, where there is possibility of the person, who must be possessing learning driving licence, therefore, he has submitted that the judgments, which is relied upon by the insurance company of this Court in the case of Mahmad Rafik Munnebhai Ansari (supra), and Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed that in para 12 “it is not the case of the claimant that either the driver of the motorcycle was possessing a learner licence or the said driving licence, which has been issued has expired”, therefore, this Court has found that since the driver is not holding any kind of valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the case. Further, he has pointed out that the judgment of this Court in the case of Arjanbhai Hansrajbhai Dawariya & two Ors. (supra), in that case the facts are totally different and in the present case also even the driving licence is produced where learning driving licence is not produced on record and which can be presumed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, the owner, who was driving the motorcycle has categorically admitted in his deposition that he was not holding any kind of valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the facts are totally different. Further, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara & two Ors. (supra), here also the facts are totally different and in para 4, the Tribunal has taken deposition of R.T.O. officer at Exh.40 and had come to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Further, he has submitted that in the present case, insurance company has not examined any officer from R.T.O. to establish that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Further, he has submitted that in the present case, insurance company has not examined any officer from R.T.O. to establish that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Further, he has submitted that as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , (ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iii) K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. Vs. Administrative Officer & Anr. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 , the contention regarding multiplier that multiplier of 5 should be awarded to the claimant in the facts and circumstances of the present case by relying the judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas (supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Sarla Verma (supra) (ii) Pranay Sethi (supra) and other judgments, therefore, he prays that the present appeal is required to be dismissed by passing appropriate judgment. 5.1 I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. It transpires that the submissions made by insurance company regarding not holding valid driving licence is otherwise sound well but looking to the driving licence which is at Exh.45, the driving licence is issued to the name of the driver of the offending vehicle from 06.10.2010 to 05.10.2021 and it is other than the transport vehicle but facts remain that the driving licence is issued for the period from 06.10.2001 and accident is occurred on 14.08.2001, therefore, there is a gap of about 53 days, therefore, looking to the practise and rules prevailing in the R.T.O., normally learner driving licence is issued before the Pakka driving licence and the validity of that driving licence is about six month, therefore, it can easily be presumed that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the driver must be holding learning driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, in the present it is a case of no driving licence, therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Raval is negative regarding driving licence. Raval is negative regarding driving licence. 5.2 Further, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Raval about multiplier of 15m which is awarded by the Tribunal is found just and proper as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) (ii) Pranay Sethi (supra) (iii) K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors (supra) as at the time of accident, claimant was aged about 40 years, he was working as Police Sub-Inspector in C.I.D. Department and he had received injuries in head like fracture, haemorrhage, etc. and he has to take leave about two months and accordingly, the Tribunal has after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal has considered that the claimant is entitled to get multiplier of 15, I found no substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant by relying the judgment of Division Bench of this Court that multiplier of 5 should be considered which is in context of different facts and thereafter also this Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that even in case of service and when the person has received serious injury which had certainly reduced his prospects of future, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered multiplier of 15. Further, the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the very lower side since the claimant has not preferred anything in the appeal, the amount is not enhanced otherwise there is scope of enhancement of amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, the present appeal is found meritless and it required to be dismissed, which would meed ends of justice. 7.1 The present appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7.2 The Tribunal shall pay the entire awarded amount, lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant(s), by following due procedure, by account payee cheque, after proper verification. 7.3 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.