ORDER 1. This common order shall govern disposal of M.A.No.2100/2013 & M.A.No.2155/2013 as both the appeals arise out of an award arising from the same accident. 2. M.A.No.2100/2013 has been filed by the insurance company seeking reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal/exoneration from the liability whereas M.A.No.2155/2013 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Both the appeals arise out of the award dated 27.6.2013 passed by Ist Additional MACT, Dhar in claim case no.92/2009. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2009 at about 8.30 PM when the deceased Heeralal was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no.MP11-MA-4601 with due care and at normal speed, the respondent No.1 who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no.HR-55-H-8685 rashly and negligently came and hit the deceased due to which Heeralal sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The insurance company, driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statement before the tribunal and denied all averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings made by the parties and recorded the evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence came on record, the tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 4. The insurance company has filed the appeal (MA No.2100/2013) on the ground that the tribunal has erred in not considering that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that it is evident from the record of the case that the driver of the offending vehicle had obtained the license from RTO, Jind on 9.10.1998 which was valid up to 15.8.2008 and after this period the same was renewed from RTO, Gurgaon which has issued this license for 3 years because there was transport endorsement on the license i.e. 14.11.2009 to 13.11.2012. He further submits that it is clear from this fact that on the date of the accident i.e on 14.7.2009 the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess license in respect of the said vehicle. He further submits that the tribunal has committed error in not relying upon the testimony of DW/1 Pawan Kumar Agrawal, officer of the insurance company who has proved the insurance policy and has also exhibited the abstracts obtained from the respective RTOs of Jind and Gurgaon. He, therefore, prayed for exoneration of the insurance company from its liability in absence of valid and effective driving license which is one of the reason for breach of the terms of the insurance policy. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants supported the impugned award in this regard and prayed for rejection of the appeal filed by the insurance company. 6. The appellants/claimants have filed the appeal MA No.2155/2013 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has erred in granting meager amount under various heads while granting compensation. The tribunal has committed an error in not granting consortium in the light of the verdict of the apex court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & others (Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020) arising out of SLP (Civil) No.28548/2014. The Tribunal has committed error in not granting future prospects in the light of the verdict of the Apex court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others - 2017 ACJ 2700 . Hence, prays for awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company prayed for rejection of the appeal filed by the claimants. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. After going through the record it is found that according to Ex.P/3, the seizure memo which was produced by the claimants, the photocopy of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was produced in which license No.1060/JD-02/Jind was mentioned and insurance company has verified the driving license Ex.D/3 of the driver of the offending vehicle in which license No.1858/FD was mentioned which is different from the photocopy of the license of the driver which was produced by the claimants. So it is the duty of the insurance company to verify the validity of the driving license which was produced by the claimants. Learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that a person has no right to hold two driving licenses at a time and he has referred to section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act to bolster his submission. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: 6. No person shall, while he holds any driving license for the time being in force, hold any other driving license except a learner's license or a driving license issued in accordance with the provisions of section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle. 10. Perusal of the record it is found that the claimants have filed the photocopy of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the license number is mentioned as 1060/JD-02/Jind and the insurance company has verified the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the license number is mentioned as 1858/FD Ex.D/3 & D/4. 11. Now the question arises whether the driving license which was produced by the claimants along with documents at the time of filing of the claim petition was genuine or not to secure the benefit of full indemnity from the insurer. At the time of trial, two licenses were produced, one said to have been secured by the insurance company on the basis of which verification evidence was given and it was revealed that it was fake. The another one is the license produced at the trial by the claimants which was not verified by the insurance company. This license was not verified by the insurance company as to whether it was fake or valid. So it shall be presumed that it was genuine. 12. It is not clearly comprehensive as to how the same person possessed two sets of licenses, one fake and another genuine. However, I reckon that the issue of breach of terms of policy invariably shall be cast on the insurer and hence even if they had secured verification for copy of the license produced by the police, they were bound to make verification and offer evidence against the license produced by the driver at the time of trial. However, I reckon that the issue of breach of terms of policy invariably shall be cast on the insurer and hence even if they had secured verification for copy of the license produced by the police, they were bound to make verification and offer evidence against the license produced by the driver at the time of trial. In this case, the license produced before the police was found to be fake but the tribunal has found the license produced by the driver as genuine after considering the evidence. Hence, now the question arises whether one person can hold two licenses at a time according to section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 13. In this regard, as one license was held to be fake it could not be said that driver possessed two licenses in violation of section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has been held in Tara Sharma's case- 2015 ACJ 761 (Delhi) in para 11 which reads as under: "(11) Thus, the insurance company failed to prove any willful or conscious breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It may also be noted that section 6 of the Act puts restrictions on a person holding a second driving license while he hold any driving license which is in force. A fake driving license cannot be said to be a driving license for the time being in force. Thus, even if it is assumed that the owner was aware of the driving license issued by the licensing authority, if the same was found to be fake then the said driving license shall be deemed to be not in force, therefore, the claims tribunal's order making the insurance company liable to pay the compensation cannot be faulted." 14. Further though in terms of section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act there is restriction on holding more than one license, but no provision was pointed out by which all the licenses of a person holding more than one licenses are to be treated as invalid. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that violation of provisions of section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act may entail punishment under section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is as under: "Section 177 of the MV Act. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that violation of provisions of section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act may entail punishment under section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is as under: "Section 177 of the MV Act. General provisions for punishment of offences- Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees." 15. But in the absence of any specific provision to that effect it may not be possible to take a view that where a person holds more than one license, all of them have to be treated as invalid. However, this situation does not arise in the present case as one of the licenses was found to be fake and it could not be considered to be a case of a person holding more than one license. 16. In view of the above facts, it is found that the driving license produced by the claimants before the Tribunal was not verified by the insurance company. Hence, in this case it is found that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving license because it was not verified by the insurance company that it was not valid at the time of accident. So, in the view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of the tribunal is correct in the eye of law and the appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 17. M.A.No.2155/2013 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Perusal of the record it is found that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and rightly deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses. However, it is found that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding 40% amount towards future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others - 2017 ACJ 2700 . However, it is found that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding 40% amount towards future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others - 2017 ACJ 2700 . The claimants are also entitled for parental as well as spousal consortium in the light of the verdict of the apex court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra) and Rs.30,000/- under the head of funeral expenses as well as loss of estate. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced as under: HEAD AMOUNT Loss of dependency -Rs.5,67,000/- (i.e. Rs.3000 40% FP=4200 x 12=50400 - 1/4 PE x 15 (m)) Consortium -Rs.2,40,000/- (40000x6) Funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate -Rs.15,000/- TOTAL -Rs.8,37,000/- 18. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.8,37,000/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.4,25,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,12,000/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants (MA No.2155/2013) is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,12,000/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact. The appellants have valued the appeal only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and paid the Court fee accordingly. However, for the remaining amount, the Court fee shall be paid by the appellants within a period of one month and thereafter the amount shall be released by the Insurance Company on receiving the certificate. In case the certificate has not been filed before the Insurance Company up to a period of three months, the claimants shall not be entitled to receive the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company (MA No.2100/2013) is dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the claimants (MA No.2155/2013) is allowed in part and to the extent indicated herein above.