JUDGEMENT 1. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged award dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby compensation in the amount of Rs. 20,54,251/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants") and the appellant has been burdened with the liability to satisfy the said award. 2. The claim petition has arisen out of a road traffic accident that took place on 07.09.2012, as a result of which one Ghulam Hassan Rather, who happened to be the father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No. 3, suffered fatal injuries. In the claim petition, it was alleged that the deceased was travelling in a vehicle bearing No. JK01F-4924 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, respondent No. 4 herein, as a result of which the vehicle met with an accident upon reaching Wushoo on Wagam-Chadoora Road. It was submitted by the claimants that the deceased was aged 52 years and he was working as a Beldar in Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. The claimants sought compensation in the amount of Rs. 30.00 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company as well as by respondents No. 4 and 5, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The appellant Insurance Company in its reply admitted the currency of policy of insurance of the offending vehicle on the date of the occurrence. It was, however, claimed that owner of the offending vehicle had committed breach of the policy conditions, inasmuch as driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence nor the documents of the vehicle were valid. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle viz. respondents No. 4 and 5, while denying the occurrence, claimed that the compensation sought by the claimants is highly excessive. 4. In terms of order dated 21.12.2012, the Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 07.09.2012 the respondent No. 1 was driving the Tata Mini Bus 407 bearing Regd. respondents No. 4 and 5, while denying the occurrence, claimed that the compensation sought by the claimants is highly excessive. 4. In terms of order dated 21.12.2012, the Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 07.09.2012 the respondent No. 1 was driving the Tata Mini Bus 407 bearing Regd. No. JK01F/4924 rashly and negligently and carelessly from Wagam-Chadoora Road, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over his vehicle, with the result, the vehicle fell into a gorge, as a consequence of which the deceased namely Gh. Hassan Rather, who was travelling in the said vehicle sustained multiple fatal injuries, resulting in his death on spot? (OPP) 2. Whether the respondent driver of the offending vehicle Tata 407 was permitted by the respondent owner to drive the offending vehicle without holding a valid and effective D/L on the material date of accident and the other documents like R/P, F/C, R/C and I/C, etc. if yes, the insured has committed breach of policy stipulations which absolves the respondent-insurance company from its liability? (OPR-3) 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as the Hon'ble Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and hear the matter? (OPR-3) 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, from whom and to what extent? (OPP) 5. Relief? 5. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which resulted in death of the deceased. It was also held that the appellant-insurance company has failed to prove that there was any breach of the policy conditions. Accordingly, compensation in the amount of Rs. 20,54,251/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants by taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 25,379/- with future prospects of Rs. 3807/- per month. 6. Accordingly, compensation in the amount of Rs. 20,54,251/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants by taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 25,379/- with future prospects of Rs. 3807/- per month. 6. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the impugned award on several grounds but during the course of arguments, much emphasis has been laid on the following grounds: (I) That the appellant-insurance company had succeeded in proving that the endorsement of renewal appearing on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake but in spite of this, the Tribunal held that the appellant-insurance company has failed to prove violation of the policy conditions; (II) That while assessing the compensation in favour of the claimants, the Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased/claimants have been paid service benefits which were required to be deducted from the awarded compensation; (III) That the Tribunal has awarded interest in favour of the claimants even on the component of future prospects which is not permissible in law; 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds of appeal, the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. 8. So far as the first contention of the appellant is concerned, in this regard it is to be noted that respondent No. 4, the driver of the offending vehicle, has stepped into the witness box during the trial. He has stated that driving licence No. 2573-ARTO/D dated 26.05.2024 has been issued in his favour and in the year 2005, it was endorsed for driving of commercial vehicles. He has further stated that another endorsement was made in the year 2008, thereby renewing the driving licence up to the year 2011 and in the year 2011, the licence was renewed upto 2014. He has stated that all these endorsements appearing on his driving licence, have been made by ARTO, Doda after fulfilling all the formalities. He has also stated that at the time of making the endorsement for authorising driving of a commercial vehicle, he had qualified the driving test. He produced the verification report in respect of his license issued by Licensing Authority, Doda/Udhampur. In his cross-examination, he has stated his original driving license has been retained by the Court at Chadoora. He has also stated that at the time of making the endorsement for authorising driving of a commercial vehicle, he had qualified the driving test. He produced the verification report in respect of his license issued by Licensing Authority, Doda/Udhampur. In his cross-examination, he has stated his original driving license has been retained by the Court at Chadoora. He denied the suggestion that his driving license was not valid as on the date of the accident. 9. Respondent No. 5, owner of the offending vehicle, has also stepped in the witness box and he has stated that when he engaged the services of respondent No. 4 as driver, he checked his driving licence and he also subjected him to driving test, whereafter he felt satisfied about his driving skills. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not get the driving licence of the driver verified from the concerned Licensing Authority. 10. As against this, the appellant-insurance company has examined RW Mehfooz Ahmad, Licensing Clerk of the office of ARTO, Poonch. He has stated in his deposition that the endorsement of renewal bearing No. 3710/RTO/P which is appearing on photocopy of DL No. 2573/MVD/D is not genuine as per the record of the Licensing Authority, Poonch. 11. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the offending driver has produced the photocopy of his driving licence before the Tribunal along with the verification report issued by the concerned Licensing Authority. He has stated that the driving licence in his favour was issued by ARTO, Doda and all the endorsements thereon have been made by ARTO, Doda. This includes the endorsement which authorized him to drive a commercial vehicle. As per the verification report issued by the Licensing Authority, Doda, the driving licence of the offending driver was valid as on the date of the accident which had taken place in the year 2012. The owner of the vehicle also supports this assertion of the driver. Thus, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have discharged their burden of proving that the driving licence of the offending driver was valid and effective as on the date of the accident. The burden of proving that there was violation of policy conditions with reference to the validity of the driving licence of the offending driver, therefore, shifted upon the insurance company. 12. The burden of proving that there was violation of policy conditions with reference to the validity of the driving licence of the offending driver, therefore, shifted upon the insurance company. 12. The appellant-insurance company has placed heavy reliance upon the statement of Clerk of Licensing Authority, Poonch, according to whom the endorsement of renewal appearing on the photocopy of the driving licence pertaining to the offending driver is fake. It is not clear as to wherefrom this photocopy of the driving licence of the offending driver has been obtained by the appellant-insurance company. Unless it is shown that the fake endorsement is actually appearing on the original driving licence of respondent No. 4, it cannot be stated that the driving licence of the said respondent was invalid as on the date of the accident. In order to prove this, it was incumbent upon the appellant-insurance company to ask for the production of original driving licence which, as per the offending driver, was lying in the custody of the Court at Chadoora. The appellant-insurance company could have easily sought production of the driving licence from the concerned Court so as to discharge its burden but it has failed to do so. 13. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the fake endorsement was actually appearing on the original driving licence of respondent No. 4 coupled with the fact that the said driver had produced before the Court a verification report of the concerned Licensing Authority, which has not been challenged by the appellant-insurance company, it is not established that the offending driver was holding an invalid driving licence at the relevant time. The appellant-insurance company has miserably failed to prove that the offending driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Thus, the breach of policy conditions has not been proved. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue cannot be interfered with. 14. It has been next contended by the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, has not deducted the service benefits that were released in favour of the claimants after the death of the deceased and that the same were required to be deducted in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna & Ors. Vs. Tek Chand & Ors. Vs. Tek Chand & Ors. (Special Leave Petition No. 5044/2019 decided on 05.02.2024). 15. There can be no dispute to the legal proposition that duplication in payment of compensation to the legal heirs of a person who had died in harness owing to a road accident is not permissible in law but for invoking this proposition of law, it has to be shown that on account of death of the deceased in harness due to road traffic accident, his legal heirs have received the service benefits of the deceased. In the instant case, unfortunately the appellant-insurance company has not even cross-examined the claimants or the official of the employer of the deceased, who proved salary of the deceased. 16. A perusal of the statement of PW H.K. Joshi, Assistant Engineer, All India Radio, Srinagar, who has proved salary of the deceased, has not been examined/cross-examined on this aspect of the matter at all. In fact, not even a suggestion has been made by the appellant-insurance company that the claimants have received any service benefits/insurance claim/ex-gratia relief after death of the deceased. Claimant Sameer Hussain Rather, has in his examination-in-chief, stated that as per the rules of All India Radio, after the death of an employee in harness, salary is not paid to his family nor any compassionate appointment of dependents is permissible under rules. The said claimant has not been cross-examined at all by the appellant-insurance company on this aspect of the matter. 17. In the absence of any material on record to show that the claimants have received any insurance claim/ex-gratia relief or any other benefit which is eligible to be deducted from the compensation amount, it is not permissible to make any deduction from the compensation assessed in favour of the claimants. 18. Lastly, it has been argued that the Tribunal has awarded interest on the component of future prospects, which is not permissible in law. In this regard, heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of [1]National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mst. Aisha Bano & Ors. (Mac. App No. 33/2022 decided on 14th July, 2023). In the said judgment, this Court has taken a view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects as the same relates to an income to be given in future. Aisha Bano & Ors. (Mac. App No. 33/2022 decided on 14th July, 2023). In the said judgment, this Court has taken a view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects as the same relates to an income to be given in future. In the aforesaid case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has, while holding the aforesaid view, observed as under: "12. The third and last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the portion of compensation granted under the head of loss of future prospects should not have been subjected to payment of any interest thereon. This argument of the learned Counsel carries force due to the fact that future prospects are relatable to an income to be received in the future and, as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects, is due to the fact that, though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident, the compensation amount is computed on the date of the award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as the time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects are with regard to probable income to be received in the future and, as such, there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects are given for the entire future and, as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event(s). Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. The same view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in cases reported as 2018 Supreme (Gau) 966'; and 2019 Supreme (Gau) 507', therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted that the component of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is not to be subjected to interest." 19. In view of the foregoing position of law, it is clear that on the component of future prospects, interest cannot be awarded. The Tribunal has, in the instant case, awarded interest on the total compensation assessed in favour of the claimants which includes the component of future prospects. The same is impermissible in law in view of the law laid down by this Court in Mst. Aisha Bano's case (supra). The award to this extent is required to be modified. The component of future prospects in the instant case comes to Rs. 3807x12=45,684/-. Thus, on this amount the claimants are not entitled to any interest. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the total amount of compensation excluding the amount of Rs. 45,684/- (rupees forty-five thousand six hundred and eighty four) hall carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. 21. The appeal shall stand disposed of. 22. A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal for information.