JUDGMENT B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI,J. - Heard Sri V.Veerabhadra Chari, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri P.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents No.1 to 5. 2. This appeal is preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4/United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Srikakulam and Branch Office, Vizianagaram, (in short the United India Insurance Company Limited) and its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam, is filed U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the award dtd. 26/8/2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.118/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Vizianagaram (in short, the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.26,72,200.00 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Kadraka Rama Rao in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 5/7/2016. 3. The present appellants are the respondents No.3 and 4 respectively in MACMA 118/2007 before the learned Tribunal; The respondents No.1 to 5 are the claimants; The 6th respondent/claimant died pending MACMA 118/2007; The 7th respondent is the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001 and the 8th respondent is the owner of the said motor cycle. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 5/7/2016 at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased Kandraka Rama Rao (in short, the deceased) went to Duddukallu village to attend the treatment of a patient and after completion of work, he was proceeding to Kothavalasa village on his two wheeler bearing No.AP 33 A 1743; he reached a place between Doddugallu and Kothavalasa on his way, the 1st respondent rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001, coming from opposite direction; the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and with high speed, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased; the deceased fell down on road and sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot; hence, the claimants/respondents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000.00. 5. The respondents No.7 and 8 did not appear before the Tribunal and were set exparte on 11.05.2017and 21/6/2017 respectively. The 2nd Appellant, who is 4th respondent in the claim petition also did not appear before the Tribunal and was set exparte on 20/4/2017. 6. 5. The respondents No.7 and 8 did not appear before the Tribunal and were set exparte on 11.05.2017and 21/6/2017 respectively. The 2nd Appellant, who is 4th respondent in the claim petition also did not appear before the Tribunal and was set exparte on 20/4/2017. 6. The 1st Appellant contested the claim petition by filing counter; the 1st Appellant/3rd respondent denied its liability to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The Tribunal basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver/1st respondent of motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 C 6001 or due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased, or both, causing death of deceased Kadraka Rama Rao? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay tne same? 3. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the claimants/respondents, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the 1st Appellant/3rd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. 9. The Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 7th respondent. On issues No.2 and 3, the age of the deceased was determined as 35 years and his gross income as Rs.12,000.00 per month and Rs.1,44,000.00 (Rs.12,000.00 x 12) per annum. The Tribunal considered the future prospectus on the established income of deceased, as per judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,01,600.00 (Rs.1,44,000.00 + 57,600). The Tribunal considered the number of dependants as five, deducted of income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and fixed the notional income of deceased at Rs.1,51,200.00 (Rs.2,01,600.00 50,400).The Tribunal applied multiplier 16' as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . considering the age of deceased in the group between 31 to 35 years. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . considering the age of deceased in the group between 31 to 35 years. Thus, the Tribunal arrived loss of dependency as Rs.1,51,200.00 x 16 = Rs.24,19,200.00. The Tribunal by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, fixed the amounts on conventional heads namely loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000.00 respectively with increase of 10% for every three years and arrived the amount at Rs.16,500.00 under each head (Rs.33,000.00). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000.00 towards spouse consortium with increase of 10% of every three years and thus, arrived the amount as Rs.44,000.00 under the said head. 10. The Tribunal apart from awarding consortium to the wife, also awarded compensation to the claimants No.2 and 3 being the minor daughters and claimant No.4 being the minor son of deceased at Rs.44,000.00 each as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 . The Tribunal also awarded consortium to the mother of the deceased at Rs.44,000.00. The details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads discussed above are as under: 11. Thus, the claim petition was partly allowed by award and decree dtd. 26/8/2022, holding that the appellants, respondents No.7 and 8 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to a tune of Rs.26,72,200.00 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition i.e., 23/2/2017, till the date of payment. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are challenging the award on two grounds. The first ground is that the insured did not provide any information as per Sec. 134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 and therefore, the appellants are not liable to indemnify the insured, and hence, they are not jointly liable for the compensation awarded in the case. The second ground is that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 per month, though there is no evidence and thereby the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency cannot be sustained. 13. The second ground is that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 per month, though there is no evidence and thereby the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency cannot be sustained. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 submitted that the insurer cannot avoid its liability towards third party claim on the ground that the insured did not comply Sec. 134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 and further, the 2nd appellant did not file counter before the Tribunal, and the 1st appellant did not raise any such plea in its counter filed before the Tribunal, and therefore, without raising any plea before the Tribunal, the appellants are not entitled to raise such plea in the appeal, as question of fact is also involved as to whether the insured provided information to the insurer U/s.134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988. 14. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 would further submit that the appellants in their appeal grounds also did not raise this plea and therefore, the contention of the counsel for appellants is devoid of merits. 15. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 would further submit that the claimants contention is that the deceased was practising medical profession as a Registered Medical Practitioner at Vizianagaram City, and the claimants to establish that the deceased was a Registered Medical Practitioner, filed Exs.A-7 and A-8 certificates issued by Private Medical Practitioners Association of India and Controller of Examinations of Institute of Public Health and Hygiene; and the appellants did not produce any contra evidence and therefore, the claimants successfully established that the deceased was a Registered Medical Practitioner and practising medical profession at Vizianagaram city; and the claimants contended that he was earning Rs.30,000.00 per month, and the Tribunal upon considering the facts and circumstances in the case, fixed Rs.12,000.00 per month as established income of the deceased, and the accident was occurred on 5/7/2016, and in the said circumstances, the amount fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said as unreasonable, since the income considered is @ Rs.400.00 only per day.; Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal. 16. We have considered the above submissions advanced and also perused the material available on record. 17. 16. We have considered the above submissions advanced and also perused the material available on record. 17. The following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the impugned award suffers from any illegality so as to warrant our interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, on the grounds that the insured did not provide information U/s.134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 and the claim of compensation and rate of interest are excessive?" 18. P O I N T: The contention of the counsel for appellants is that the insured (8th respondent) did not provide information as per Sec. 134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 and therefore, the insured violated the statutory provision and terms of contract of insurance policy, and hence, the appellants are not liable to indemnify the insured. The appellants in the appeal grounds did not raise any such plea. The learned counsel for appellants raised this plea during his arguments for the first time. The appellants in the appeal grounds also did not raise any such ground. 19. Breach of Sec. 134(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 is punishable U/s.187 of M.V.Act, 1988. Ex.A-5 is copy of police report (charge sheet) filed by Elwinpeta Police Station against the 7th respondent for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and U/s.181 of M.V.Act, 1988 only. The police did not charge sheeted the 7th respondent or 8th respondent for the offence punishable U/s.187 of M.V.Act, alleging that they breached Sec. 134(c) of M.V.Act, 1988. No specific plea raised before the Tribunal. No evidence was let in on this aspect. In the light of above factual context, we are of the considered opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of merit. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal on this ground. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that the Tribunal without any evidence, erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 per month. The claimants contended that the deceased was practising as a Registered Medical Practitioner at Vizianagaram and earning Rs.30,000.00 per month on the date of death. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that the Tribunal without any evidence, erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 per month. The claimants contended that the deceased was practising as a Registered Medical Practitioner at Vizianagaram and earning Rs.30,000.00 per month on the date of death. The Tribunal on facts found that the claimants filed Ex.A-7 original membership certificate issued by the President of Private Medical Practitioners' Association, India (Registered), and that the said document was not disputed by the respondents No.3 and 4 and further, the claimants also placed Ex.A-8 original certificate of diploma course in Public Health and Sanitation Technology Certificate issued to deceased by Controller of Examination of Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, and that this document was also not disputed by the respondents No.3 and 4 and basing on the said documents, found that the deceased was a Registered Medical Practitioner in Vizianagaram and considering his age and occupation, the Tribunal assessed notionally, the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 per month. 21. We have perused the evidence placed on record by the claimants, and the appellants before the Tribunal in this regard. The claimants as stated above filed Exs.A-7 and A-8 certificates to establish their contention that the deceased was a qualified Registered Medical Practitioner and he was practising as Registered Medical Practitioner at Vizianagaram. In fact, they pleaded that on the date of accident, he went to a patient and while returning he met with the accident. The wife of deceased was examined as P.W-1. In her chiefexamination affidavit, she stated that her husband worked as a Registered Medical Practitioner and earning not less than Rs.30,000.00 per month. The appellants in the cross-examination merely suggested and denied the statement of P.W-1 as false. Nothing material was elicited to probable their contention that the deceased was not a Registered Medical Practitioner in Vizianagaram. 22. The claimants examined Mr.Kondagorri Ramadasu a neighbouring villager as P.W-2. He deposed that the deceased was a Registered Medical Practitioner and doing treatment to the villagers in and around the area. The appellants did not elicit anything contra in the cross-examination. R.W-1, who is the Branch Manager of Appellant Insurance Company did not state anything regarding the qualification of deceased or his income. 23. He deposed that the deceased was a Registered Medical Practitioner and doing treatment to the villagers in and around the area. The appellants did not elicit anything contra in the cross-examination. R.W-1, who is the Branch Manager of Appellant Insurance Company did not state anything regarding the qualification of deceased or his income. 23. In the above factual circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere the notional income of Rs.12,000.00 fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal as we stated supra, calculated the loss of dependency as per principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Praney Sethi and others and Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, considering the age of deceased as 35 years basing on his S.S.C. Certificate (Ex.A-6). It was not disputed by the appellants. 24. The appellants in the appeal grounds, raised a contention that the insured allowed the 7th respondent to drive the motor cycle AP 35 C 6001 (crime vehicle) though, he did not possess driving license to drive the said motor cycle and thereby insured violated the policy terms and that the deceased was driving his motor cycle in violation of sec. 3 and 146 of M.V.Act, 1988 to say that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. 25. The appellants in support of their contention that the 7th respondent was not having valid license has examined R.W-2, a Junior Assistant, working in Road Transport Office at Vizianagaram and filed Exs.X-1 and X-2 to establish that the 7th respondent was having learner's license only issued on 29/9/2014 and that thereafter, it was not renewed or any regular license was issued to him. But the appellants did not adduce any evidence to establish that the 8th respondent knowing well the 7th respondent was not having license to drive the motor cycle, allowed him to drive the motor cycle and that the accident was occurred on account of the said fact. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (3) SCC 297 . 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (3) SCC 297 . after considering various aspects relating to forged, fake license, learner license and driver not having valid license etc., held as under: "SUMMARY OF FINDINGS": The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Sec. 163 A or Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Sec. 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-sec. (2)(a)(ii) of Sec. 149, have 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Sec. 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Sec. 165 read with Sec. 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Sec. 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Sec. 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 149(2) read with sub-sec. (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Sec. 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal." 27. In the light of above principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellants have to establish that the insured wilfully allowed the driver (7th respondent), to drive the vehicle, and that the accident was occurred due to breach of said condition. The appellants in the case on hand, did not place any evidence to discharge the burden establishing that the 8th respondent wilfully allowed the 7th respondent, though he was not having license to drive the motor cycle and accident was occurred for that reason. Hence, we do not find any merit in the said contention raised by the appellants. 28. On consideration of the facts based on evidence, we are of the opinion that the appellants failed to establish their other ground that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, and therefore, he contributed to the cause of death. 29. Hence, we do not find any merit in the said contention raised by the appellants. 28. On consideration of the facts based on evidence, we are of the opinion that the appellants failed to establish their other ground that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, and therefore, he contributed to the cause of death. 29. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Kiran Vs. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 . held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in granting interest @ 6% p.a. and 7.5% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. The Apex Court awarded interest @ 9% p.a. Consequently, we hold that grant of 9% p.a. interest cannot be considered as excessive or on the higher side. 30. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the appeal. 31. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.