JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.506 of 2009 dated 01.07.2011. 2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of one A.Venkata Ratnam (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, are the appellants. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP 37 W 9063 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 27.05.2009 at about 03.00 p.m., while the deceased travelling in the crime auto and when they reached Kakatiya Nagar of Pulaparru Village, the driver of the said auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden breaks, resulted the deceased fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on the same day. ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in causing the incident; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident dated 27.05.2009 in which the deceased Aripaka Venkata Ratnam died occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 37 W 9063 by the 1st respondent is alleged in the petition? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7, X.2 and X.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were exhibited. 8. and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7, X.2 and X.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were exhibited. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime auto by its driver and the driver of the said auto is not having valid driving license to drive the auto rickshaw passenger carrying vehicle by the time of incident, thereby, 2nd respondent is exonerated from its liability, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,02,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.1 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants. 10. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer. 11. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the earnings of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and erroneously taken as Rs.4,000/- per month; that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as claimed; that even the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the same, the insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability, when the policy is in force and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 , New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Korukonda Apparao 2010 (2) ALT 229 , Gurmail Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 2019 ACJ 713 , Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2018 ACJ 2163 , Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 2015 ACJ 598 , Universal Sompo General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Ranu Mohapatra 2020 ACJ 256 , Priya v. P.Ramasamy 2024 ACJ 440 and K.Ramya v. National Insurance Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816. 12. 12. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly came to the conclusion that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the same by the time of incident, thereby, the insurer is exonerated from its liability and there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding, as such, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the findings arrived by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 14. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime vehicle in the incident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto in causing the incident and the driver of the crime auto was not having valid driving license to drive the same as well the policy issued by the insurer for the crime auto is in force by the time of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the insurer as well as the owner of the crime auto did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The foremost contention of the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective in awarding compensation, as such, the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed. 16. To prove the income of the deceased as claimed, the claimants got examined P.Ws.4 to 6, who are village revenue officers and sarpanch of Gudiwakalanka Village respectively and relied upon Exs.A.5 and A.6 certificate regarding daily income of the deceased Rs.300/- to R.400/- as carpenter. But it is categorical that P.Ws.4 to 6 have no basis to issue such certificates by assessing daily income of the deceased. As such, the tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court cannot find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased notionally in the absence of substantial proof. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.48,000/- per annum. 17. As such, the tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. This Court cannot find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased notionally in the absence of substantial proof. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.48,000/- per annum. 17. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 18. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), at para 59.4. it is held “ In case the deceased was 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 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In the present case as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects since the deceased is in the age group of 46 to 50 years. In the present case as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects since the deceased is in the age group of 46 to 50 years. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.60,000/-(Rs.48,000/- + Rs.12,000/-). 20. In the case on hand, the deceased was married, he had wife and three children, thereby the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.45,000/-. 21. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr., 2017 (3) SCC 315, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. 22. In the present case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age ground of the deceased i.e., between 46 to 50 years is 13. 22. In the present case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age ground of the deceased i.e., between 46 to 50 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.5,85,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 13). Apart from that, as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards spousal and parental consortium, an amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In total the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,75,000/-. The remaining heads as claimed and awarded by the Tribunal are not applicable to the present case on hand, in view of the above pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.48,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.48,000/- + Rs.12,000/-) Rs.60,000/- 3 1/4th to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.45,000/-. 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.45,000/- x 13) Rs.5,85,000/- 5 Loss of spousal and parental consortium Rs.1,60,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.7,75,000/- 24. Now, coming to the liability of insurer to pay the compensation is concerned, as stated supra, it is not in dispute that the policy issued to the crime vehicle is in force by the time of incident as well the driver of the crime auto is not having valid driving license to drive the same at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from its liability to indemnify the 1st respondent/owner. However, it is settled legal law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of pronouncements that even the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid license to drive the same by the time of incident, the Tribunal can direct the insurer to satisfy the award at first instance and then recover the same from the insured. To fortify the same, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra. 25. To fortify the same, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra. 25. Now, it is relevant to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna case (referred to supra), which is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants, wherein referred various earlier pronouncements of Apex Court and held at paragraph No.7 and 8 as follows: “7. As per the decision in Swaran Singh’s case, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving license and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving license and there is breach of the policy conditions, ‘pay and recover’ can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving license produced by the driver fulfils the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. 8. The Supreme Court considered the decision of Swaran Singh’s case in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 ACJ 721 (SC), wherein this court held that “the decision in Swaran Singh’s case has no application to cases other than third part risks and in case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured”. The same principle was reiterated in Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev, 2008 ACJ 776 (SC).” 26. In view of the above, it is categorical that this Court can direct the insurer to pay the compensation to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the crime auto, even in the absence of valid driving license to the driver of the crime auto by the time of incident. 27. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the tribunal can be modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,02,000/- to Rs.7,75,000/- and to the extent of directing the insurer to pay the compensation as entitled above to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner of the crime auto by filing execution petition. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 28. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 28. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed to enhance the compensation from Rs.5,02,000/- to Rs.7,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against owner of the crime auto. However, the 2nd respondent/insurer of the crime auto is directed to pay the above compensation awarded to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner by filing execution petition. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and she is entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The entitlement and apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal for claimant Nos.2 to 4 remain unaltered. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.