JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively arise out of same accident that took place on 07.04.2011, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In MAC No. 1173/2015, Respondent No. 6/owner of offending vehicle has also filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging the liability part. 3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 07.04.2011, deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-J-0334 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’) by non-applicant no. 1/driver of offending vehicle-Ashok Sharma. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 3. 4. On account of death of deceased- Dwarika Prasad Sahu, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was aged about 35 years & earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as labour (daily wager) and also used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as commission by working as agent in Satya Sai Prasad Private Limited. However, the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 85/2011 vide award dated 17.07.2015, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally while entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner and driver in case the compensation is firstly paid by the Insurance Company. Against the said award, Insurance Company and claimants are before this Court and filed these appeals. 5. 1 to 3 jointly and severally while entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner and driver in case the compensation is firstly paid by the Insurance Company. Against the said award, Insurance Company and claimants are before this Court and filed these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals submits that at the time of accident, non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and for proving the said fact, Insurance Company has examined Rajiv Singh, Administrative Officer as NAW(3) and S.N. Pegu, Head Assistant, D.T.O. Betukuchi, Guwahati, Assam as NAW(3)-2, who have proved the fact that the driving licence bearing No. AS-01-436538/2005 was not issued in the name of driver of offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle has not examined himself before the Claims Tribunal for proving that he was having a valid and effective licence. Therefore, in these circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon Insurance Company/non-applicant no. 3 along with the non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. He further submits that the order of pay and recover passed by the learned claims Tribunal is also contrary to law. He also submits that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is also on higher side, which needs to be reduced suitably. Therefore, he urged that appeal filed by the Insurance Company may be allowed and Insurance Company may be absolved from its liability and order of pay and recover may also be quashed. 6. Though counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has filed cross-objection challenging the liability, but even after repeated calls there was no representation on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. However, by way of filing cross-objection, counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle prayed that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle as owner of the offending vehicle, after verifying the driving licence of non-applicant No. 1 & testing his skills of driving, hired him (non-applicant No. 1) as driver and also followed the mandatory conditions while hiring him. It was further averred by him that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has not proved any breach of policy conditions, therefore, Insurance Company ought to have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants in MAC No. 1575/2015 submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded looking to the age of the deceased and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He further submits that the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier 15, whereas it should be 16, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years as mentioned in final report and postmortem report of deceased and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Pranay Sethi (supra). He also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Firstly, I shall deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No. 1173/2015 and cross-objection filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. 10. So far as the question of fastening liability is concerned, the Insurance Company in its written statement has pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle without having any valid and effective driving licence and for proving the said fact, Insurance Company has examined NAW(3) Rajiv Singh, Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that though the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company as per Ex.D-6 (Insurance Policy), but after verifying the copy of driving licence bearing No. AS/01/436538/2005, which is marked as Ex.D-7, from D.T.O. Guwahati, it was found that the said driving licence was not issued in the name of driver of offending vehicle/non-applicant No. 1-Ashok Sharma, S/o Vijay Sharma and the same is found to be a fake one. Insurance Company has also examined S.N. Pegu, Head Assistant, DTO Betukuchi, Guwahati, Assam as NAW(3), who has also stated that driving licence bearing No. AS-01-436538 (Ex.D-7) was not issued from his Office in the name of non-applicant No. 1/Ashok Kumar Sharma, S/o Vijay Sharma and the serial number mentioned in the said licence also does not belong to his Office. Thus, from the evidence of above witnesses, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence at the time of accident and the driving licence which non-applicant No. 1/Ashok Sharma held is a fake one. 11. On the contrary, Ajay Jain, owner of the offending vehicle was examined himself as NAW-2(1), who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and non-applicant No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and he has filed the copy of driving licence of non-applicant No. 1, which is marked as Ex.D-7. He has further stated that he has verified the driving licence of non-applicant No. 1. He has also stated that after the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was absconded. However, in cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any document with regard to verification of driving licence of non-applicant No. 1. He has also admitted that licence number mentioned in the photo copy is not clear and he has also not verified the said driving licence from the concerned RTO. He has also admitted that although he had appointed one Shekhar Sahu to conduct trials regarding appointment of drivers and to test their driving skills, but the said Shekhar Sahu has not been examined himself before the Tribunal. He has also admitted that neither he had appointed non-applicant No. 1 as driver nor he had seen his driving skills, rather his employee had appointed non-applicant No. 1 as driver. It is pertinent to mention here that owner of the offending vehicle has not pleaded the above fact in his written statement nor submitted any verification report and that not examined his employee who appointed non-applicant No. 1 as driver. Moreover, driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No. 1 has also not been examined himself to prove as to whether he had any valid and effective driving licence or not. 12. Moreover, driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No. 1 has also not been examined himself to prove as to whether he had any valid and effective driving licence or not. 12. Thus, in view of the evidence of NAW(3) Rajiv Singh and NAW(3) S.N. Pegu, it is clear that at the time of accident, non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the driving licence which he held is a fake one. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was breach of policy conditions by non-applicant No. 1 Ashok Sharma and the Tribunal was unjustified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, it is held that since the Insurance Company has fully discharged its duty while proving that on the date of accident, there was breach of policy conditions by driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby exonerated and it is also held that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 13. Now, I shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. MAC No. 1575/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 14. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as labour (daily wager) in company situated at village Sarora and also used to earn Rs.3,000/- as commission by working as agent in Satya Sai Prasad Private Ltd., but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. Claimants have also filed certificate (Ex.P-2) showing that the deceased- Dwarika Prasad Sahu was also working in M/s Mahamaya Steel Wire, Bhanpuri, Raipur and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, but the person who issued the alleged certificate has not been examined by the claimants and that they have also not pleaded in the claim petition that deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was also working in Mahamaya Steel Wire, Bhanpuri, Raipur. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the C.G. State Minimum Wages for the period between 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011 and the nature of work of the deceased, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,136/- i.e. Rs.49,632/- per annum. 15. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, as mentioned in final report and postmortem report, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has prescribed the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31-35 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the appellant i.e. 35 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16 instead of 15 as used by the Tribunal. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner: S. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs. 4,136/- per month Rs. 49,632/- per annum 2. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects Rs. 19,852/- [Rs. 49,632/- + Rs. 19,852] = Rs. 69,484/- 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs. 17,371/- [Rs. 69,484/- - Rs. 17,371/-] = Rs. 52,113/- 4. Multiplier of 16 to be applied Rs. 8,33,808/- [52,113/- x 16] 5. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to claimant Nos. 1 to 4 (Rs. 40,000/- each) Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 17,371/- [Rs. 69,484/- - Rs. 17,371/-] = Rs. 52,113/- 4. Multiplier of 16 to be applied Rs. 8,33,808/- [52,113/- x 16] 5. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to claimant Nos. 1 to 4 (Rs. 40,000/- each) Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 10,23,808/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.9,10,000/- after deducting the same from Rs.10,23,808/-, the claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,13,808/- which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 16. As regards the payment of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held as under: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is 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) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has 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 the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defences 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 the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances 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 the 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 insurer under Section 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 t 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 Section 165 read with Section 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. 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 the 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 Section 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 Section 149(2) read with sub-section (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 Section 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-section (3) of Section 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. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 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. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insure can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 17. Reiterating the judgment of Swaran Singh case (supra) in Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) SCC 650 it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of 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 licence produced by the driver...does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.” 7. The Supreme Court considered the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 , wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 705, Para 5) “5. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party 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.” 18. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party 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.” 18. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters and further considering the fact that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company, I direct the non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount first to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 19. In the result, both the appeals (MAC No. 1173/2015 & MAC No. 1575/2015) filed by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above, whereas cross-objection filed by owner of the offending vehicle, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall intact.