JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1.As all the appeals filed by Insurance Company & claimants respectively arise out of the impugned awards dated 17.03.2016 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G. in separate Claim Case No.102/2011 (MAC No.710/2016), Claim Case No.101/2011 (MAC No.711/2016 & MAC No.1243/2016), Claim Case No.95/2011 (MAC No.715/2016), Claim Case No.103/2011 (MAC No.716/2016 & MAC No.1245/2016), Claim Case No.100/2011 (MAC No.717/2016 & MAC No.1242/2016), Claim Case No.88/2011 (MAC No.718/2016 & MAC No.1244/2016) & Claim Case No.98/2011 (MAC No.814/2016), involving the same accident, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2.As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 13.12.2010 at about 8:30 pm, deceased persons after attending the engagement ceremony at village Lavar, were returning to their village Potiya by sitting in Maruti Van bearing registration No.CG04-B-3004, which was being driven by deceased-Gopal Tandon. However, on the way, when they reached Hathband Kamta Road near Crusher Machine, non-applicant No.1 / driver of the Truck bearing registration No.CG04-ZC-4052 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle'), by driving the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed the said Maruti Van, as a result of which, deceased persons, who were sitting in the said Maruti Van, sustained grievous injuries over their bodies and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. 3.On account of death of deceased- Dovendra Kumar Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.102/2011 (MAC No.710/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.24,70,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G., after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.10,54,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company / non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased- Sawant Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.101/2011 (MAC No.711/2016 & MAC No.1243/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.26,70,000/- under various heads. On account of death of deceased- Sawant Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.101/2011 (MAC No.711/2016 & MAC No.1243/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.26,70,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.11,54,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company / non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased- Gopal Tondan, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.95/2011 (MAC No.715/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G., after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased- Raju Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.103/2011 (MAC No.716/2016 & MAC No.1245/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.63,20,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G., after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased- Golu Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.100/2011 (MAC No.717/2016 & MAC No.1242/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.26,70,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G., after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.11,54,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased-Sanat Kumar Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.88/2011 (MAC No.718/2016 & MAC No.1244/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.70,44,000/- under various heads. On account of death of deceased-Sanat Kumar Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.88/2011 (MAC No.718/2016 & MAC No.1244/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.70,44,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg, C.G., after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.15,28,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. On account of death of deceased Dhaneshwar Joshi, a claim petition i.e. Claim Case No.98/2011 (MAC No.814/2016) was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.19,35,000/- under various heads. The learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.7,31,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application till its realization while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. 4.Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in all the appeals would submit that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and licence which he held was a fake one as is evident from the statement of NAW(3 & 5)-1 Nihal Singh, Junior Assistant, R.T.O. Dholpur, Rajasthan, who has specifically stated that no driving licence as such was issued from R.T.O. Dholpur in the name of driver of the offending vehicle- Jivan Lal Sahu, therefore, subsequent renewal made by RTO, Raipur cannot be given effect to its genuineness and it cannot be treated as valid driving licence. He would further submit that the owner of the offending vehicle has not specifically pleaded in his written statement that after verifying the driving licence of non-applicant No.1/Jivan Lal Sahu and testing his driving skills, he had appointed him as driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1, therefore, his evidence is not admissible and that owner of the offending vehicle ought to have been obliged to follow the conditions mentioned in Sections 3 & 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would also submit that owner of the offending vehicle without discharging his duty, engaged non-applicant No.1 and handed over the offending vehicle to him, therefore, it is a willful breach on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle. In MAC No.715/2016, he would further advance the arguments that the driver of the Maruti van / deceased- Gopal Tondan himself was fully responsible for causing the accident and for his own negligence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore, claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act by the claimants (MAC No.715/2016) of deceased- Gopal Tandon is not maintainable. He would further submit that in all the appeals, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the percentage towards future prospects, whereas it should be applied depending upon the age of the deceased persons and also 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 would also submit that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads in all the appeals are also on the higher side, which needs to be reduced suitably. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Bhat and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1837 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 5.Learned counsel for the owner and driver of offending vehicle in all the appeals would submit that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed a joint written statement wherein it is specifically mentioned that driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 is having 20 years experience and after verifying his driving licence, the owner of the offending vehicle found that it was a valid one and was renewed from time to time and only after testing his driving skills, owner of the offending vehicle appointed non-applicant No.1 as driver of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have examined themselves before the Tribunal and specifically stated that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence which was renewed by RTO, Raipur from time to time. He would also submit that entire records of RTO for the year 1986 were destroyed as stated by NAW(3 & 5)-1 Nihal Singh, Junior Assistant, RTO Dholpur and if that be so, then it cannot be said that driving licence was not issued in the name of driver of offending vehicle. Thus, the learned claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, which needs no interference by this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Ram Narayan Mishra and others passed in MA No.420/2001 on 07.07.2009. 6.Learned counsel for the claimants in all the appeals would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased persons at Rs.4,500/-, whereas it should be Rs.6,000/- per month looking to the nature of work of deceased persons. He would further submit that deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased persons in some appeals is not just and proper, whereas it should be looking to the dependency upon the deceased persons, while admitting that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and proper. 7.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company 8. 7.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that accident occurred due to the own negligence of driver of Maruti van/deceased-Gopal Tandon and not by driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 is concerned, AW-1 Radheshyam Tandon has stated that on 13.12.2010, his son / Gopal Tandon, along with other passengers, was returning from village Lavar after attending engagement ceremony in the Maruti van, which was being driven by deceased-Gopal Tandon in a moderate speed and at 8:45 pm, ahead of crusher machine near Hathband road, the offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver/non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, vehemently dashed the Maruti van, as a result of which, along with other passengers, Gopal Tandon, who was driving the Maruti van, also sustained grievous injuries over his body and died. The statement of AW-1 Radheshyam Tandon also found corroboration from the statement of AW-2 Baleshwar Joshi. On the contrary, NAW-1 Jivan Lal Sahu, driver of offending vehicle and NAW-2 Ram Gopal Agrawal, owner of the offending vehicle, have stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Maruti van and not by offending vehicle. However, from perusal of the record, the respective claimants have filed criminal case documents i.e. final report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2), spot map (Ex.P-3), seizure memos (Exs.P-6 & P-7) and other relevant documents and from perusal of the same, it is manifestly clear that after the accident, police filed challan and FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and offending vehicle was also seized from non-applicant No.1 showing his name as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, statement of NAW-1 driver of offending vehicle shows that he has been prosecuted for causing the accident and there is no counter complaint lodged by him for his false implication and that no evidence was brought on record by him that the driver of the Maruti van was negligent for causing the accident. Moreover, statement of NAW-1 driver of offending vehicle shows that he has been prosecuted for causing the accident and there is no counter complaint lodged by him for his false implication and that no evidence was brought on record by him that the driver of the Maruti van was negligent for causing the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that the learned claims Tribunal, after minute appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, in its impugned judgment, has rightly observed that on the date of accident i.e. 13.12.2010, non-applicant No.1 / driver of offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Maruti van being driven by the deceased- Gopal Tandon and thereby caused the accident. Thus, it is held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased- Gopal Tandon and on account of death of deceased- Goptal Tandon, claim application under Section 166 of MV Act filed by the claimants is maintainable. Therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in this regard is rejected. 9.Now the question that arises for consideration as to whether on the date of accident, driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was a valid or fake one? 10.Insurance Company in its written statement has specifically pleaded that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1/driver without having any valid and effective driving licence and for proving the said fact, Insurance Company has examined NAW(3 & 5)-1 Nihal Singh, Junior Assistant, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that after verification of driving licence bearing registration No.RJ/11/19860002425 dated 05.04.1986, it was found that the said licence was not issued from his Office and the letter which was issued is marked as Ex.D-2C. In cross-examination, he has denied that prior to the said driving licence, licence No.OTH/J/152/R/93 was issued in favour of non-applicant No.1 Jivan Lal Sahu. It has been further admitted by him in cross-examination that letter Ex.D-2C has been issued without enclosing the original document with respect to verification of driving licence and also admitted that in the driving licence register, after serial No.2099, serial No.3000 has inadvertently been affixed. It is also admitted by him that licence between serial Nos. It has been further admitted by him in cross-examination that letter Ex.D-2C has been issued without enclosing the original document with respect to verification of driving licence and also admitted that in the driving licence register, after serial No.2099, serial No.3000 has inadvertently been affixed. It is also admitted by him that licence between serial Nos. 2100 to 2999 has not been issued and he sought for setting aside the said serial numbers and accordingly, order dated 23.08.1985 has been issued. He has also admitted that in Exs.D-4 & D-5, there is no mentioning of particulars with respect to issuance of driving licence in the year 1986 and that no such licence, held by the non-applicant No.1, has been issued. He has also admitted that if a licence comes from other states, then NOC with respect to issuance of earlier licence and proof is required to be obtained. He has also admitted that licence (obtained from other state) is verified and issued only after receiving verification of concerned licence. It has also admitted by him that files for the year 1986 have been destroyed and further admitted that for renewal of licence, due process is followed. On the contrary, NAW-1 Jivan Lal Sahu, driver of offending vehicle, has admitted in his cross-examination that his original driving licence was made in Rajasthan, Dholpur itself and renewed at Raipur. NAW-2 Ram Gopal Agrawal, owner of the offending vehicle, has stated in examination-in-chief that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid and effective driving licence and after verifying the said licence and testing his driving skills, he deputed him as driver and that non-applicant No.1/Jivan Lal has experience to drive heavy vehicle as well and his licence was being renewed from RTA, Raipur from time to time. In cross-examination, he has admitted that driving licence which non-applicant No.1/Jivan Lal Sahu had brought was issued from Raipur. In cross-examination, he has admitted that driving licence which non-applicant No.1/Jivan Lal Sahu had brought was issued from Raipur. Though counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that owner of the offending vehicle has not specifically pleaded in his written statement that after verifying the driving licence of non-applicant No.1/Jivan Lal Sahu and testing his driving skills, he had appointed him as driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, his evidence is not admissible, but it is pertinent to mention here that the written statement has been filed jointly by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the averments made in the written statement are to be read as a whole. It is also pertinent to mention here that extract of diving licence issued by Govt. of Chhattisgarh in favour of non-applicant No.1-Jivan Lal Sahu has been brought on record which is marked as Ex.D-13C wherein some details are mentioned which are relevant for just decision making of these appeals and the same are reproduced hereunder:- Licence Holder Details DL Number-RJ11/1986/0002425 Name-Jeevan Lal Sahu S/o Ratan Lal Sahu Xxxxxx A. First Time Issuance Details Issued by OLA : RJ11 DTO, DHOLPUR Catg. Class of Vehicle (s) NT:TR: TRANS XXXXXXXX Extract Issue Date 25/04/2012 4:32PM Previous No.OTH/J/152/R/93 Xxx DL Issue Date:- 05/04/1986 Catg. Valid from Valid to NT: TR: 05/04/1986 29/01/2009 C. Subsequent Transactions SI No. Transaction Endorsement date Validity from Validity to Period of DL, Not valid, if any Class of vehicle endorsed Endorse Authority From To 1. Renewal of DL 17.02.2009 25/03/2006 30/01/2009 24/03/2011 (NT) 24/03/2011 (TR) 25/03/2011 26/04/2011 CG04 2. Renewal of DL 27/04/2011 27/04/2011 27/04/2011 26/04/2016 (NT) 26/04/2016 (TR) CG04 3. MISCELLANEOUS 27/04/2011 27/04/2011 27/04/2011 26/04/2016 (NT) 26/04/2016 (TR) CG04 xxxxxxxxxxx 11.A perusal of above document (Ex.D-13C), it is quite clear that the licence bearing No.RJ11/1986/0002425 was issued in the name of non-applicant No.1 Jeevan Lal Sahu from DTO, Dholpur, Rajasthan on 05.04.1986 which was effective from 05.04.1986 to 29.01.2009. Thereafter, the said licence was renewed from time to time as shown in the above table. Thereafter, the said licence was renewed from time to time as shown in the above table. In view of document (Ex.D-13C), which is an extract of driving licence of non-applicant No.1 brought on record, the statement made by (NAW-3 & 5)-1 Nihal Singh has no evidentiary value as in examination-in-chief, he has stated that no such licence, which was stated to be of the year 1986, was issued from his Office and on the contrary, he has stated in cross-examination that the particulars of licence register for the year 1986 were destroyed and, thus his evidence is inadmissible. Therefore, based on Ex.D-13C, it is held that the driving licence held by the non-applicant No.1 Jeevan Lal Sahu at the time of accident was valid and effective and not found to be fake one. 12.In the matter of Ram Naryan Mishra and others (supra), this Court has held in paras 9 & 10 which read as under:- “(9) So far as the question of fake licence is concerned, that itself would not be a ground for exonerating the Insurance Company in absence of proof that the insured was guilty of negligence and he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The burden of proving such fact lies on the Insurance Company. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or any disqualification of the driver are not in themselves the defences available to the insurer either against the insured or the third parties. This has been laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. -vs Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in which the Supreme Court recorded the following findings vide Para 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 paramount be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to paramount be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise 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 conditions 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. (iv) Insurance companies, 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 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 deriving 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. 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 to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having 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 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 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. (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 insured 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. 10. In the present case, the Insurance Company, by way of evidence of N.A.W. 1, has brought on record that the licence said to be held by the driver of the Truck was a fake licence as on their enquiry it was found that the said licence was never issued from the concerned licensing authority, Gauhati (Assam): We have seen the photocopy of the licence. The licence has been shown to be issued in Form-6 under the concerned Rule 16(1). It also bears the photograph of the driver at the appropriate place and seal and illegible signatures with dates shown to be that of the licensing authority. This licence was shown to be issued for driving heavy goods vehicle and it was further shown to be lastly renewed upto 20.12.2001. Even assuming that it was a fake licence, but the insurance company did not discharge its burden by proving that the insured was guilty of negligence and he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding use of Vehicle by duly licensed driver. Even assuming that it was a fake licence, but the insurance company did not discharge its burden by proving that the insured was guilty of negligence and he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding use of Vehicle by duly licensed driver. We presume that the said licence must have been produced before the owner and by exercising reasonable care, the owner must have handed over the vehicle to the driver taking into consideration that he was having a valid driving licence. If the alleged licence would not have been in statutory proforma or it would be showing some Irregularity on the face of it, or there would have been some indication of the fake character of the licence in its appearance which a normal man must notice after seeing the licence in first sight or by applying his common sense with due diligence, then only it would be said that the insured was guilty of negligence and he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the Policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver. But nothing as above could be brought on record. It is for all these reasons, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation in the matter and the same cannot be exonerated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any fault in such approach of the Tribunal. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, cannot be sustained.” 13.Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in the above referred matter and considering the evidence of NAW-1 driver of the offending vehicle and NAW-2 owner of the offending vehicle coupled with the document Ex.D-13C, it is evident that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 / driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence and the driving licence which he held is not found to be a fake one. Although Insurance Company has stressed on the point that driving licence held by driver of the offending vehicle is found to be fake one, but the burden lies upon the Insurance Company to prove the same by adducing cogent and clinching evidence, in which, Insurance Company has utterly failed and that the Insurance Company could not prove any breach of policy conditions, therefore, the contention raised by counsel for the Insurance Company in this regard is also rejected. The learned Tribunal, in its impugned award, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, has also found that the driving licence produced by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident is a valid one as the same was issued from DTO, Dholpur and its Office Code is RJ 11 and thus fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. The said finding recoded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact, based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm such finding of Tribunal. The case law cited by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in the matters of Geeta Bhat and Kamla and others (supra), being distinguishable on facts of the present case, are of no help to the Insurance Company. 14.Now, I shall deal with the appeals filed by the claimants (MAC No.1242/2016, MAC No.1243/2016, MAC No.1244/2016 & MAC No.1245/2016) and cross objection (MAC No.710/2016) filed by the claimant- Dovendra Kumar for enhancement of compensation. 15.As regards the income of the deceased persons, though the claimants in the separate claim petitions have pleaded that the deceased persons were working as labourers and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced by the claimants to substantiate the said fact. However, the Tribunal, as per the evidence and material available on record, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased persons at Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 16.In so far as grant of future prospects in all the appeals is concerned, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased persons below 40 years, however, erred in assessing 50% towards future prospects, which needs to be reduced suitably. 16.In so far as grant of future prospects in all the appeals is concerned, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased persons below 40 years, however, erred in assessing 50% towards future prospects, which needs to be reduced suitably. 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 aged below 40 years. Therefore, in the present cases, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 40% in place of 50% as has been done by the Tribunal. In MAC No.814/2016, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased- Dhaneshwar Joshi as 52 years, but erred in assessing 50% towards future prospects. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 10% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are aged between 50-60 years, therefore, in the present case (MAC No.814/2016), the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 10% in place of 50% as has been done by the Tribunal. 17.Further, looking to the age of the deceased persons, dependency upon them and taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation of all appeals in the following manner:- MAC No.1242/2016 & MAC No.717/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40 % of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased- Golu Joshi was unmarried) Rs.37,800/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.37,800/- = Rs.37,800/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years Rs.37,800/- x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimants Nos. 1 to 5 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.9,10,400/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.9,10,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs.11,54,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimants Nos. 1 to 5 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.9,10,400/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.9,10,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs.11,54,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1243/2016 & MAC No.711/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40 % of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased- Sawant Joshi was unmarried) Rs.37,800/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.37,800/- = Rs.37,800/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years Rs.37,800/- x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimants/appellants Nos. 1 to 6 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.2,40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.9,50,400/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.9,50,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs.11,54,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1244 of 2016 & MAC No.718 of 2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40 % of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased- Sanat Kumar Joshi Rs.18,900/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 24 years Rs.56,700/- x 18 = Rs.10,20,600/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimants/appellant Nos. 1 to 4 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,10,600/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,10,600/- as total compensation in place of Rs.15,28,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1245/2016 & MAC No.716/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. 1 to 4 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,10,600/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,10,600/- as total compensation in place of Rs.15,28,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.1245/2016 & MAC No.716/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40 % of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased-Raju Joshi Rs.18,900/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years Rs.56,700/- x 18 = Rs.10,20,600/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimant Nos. 1 to 5 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,50,600/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,50,600/- as total compensation in place of Rs.12,64,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.710/2016 & Cross-appeal by the claimants S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased- Dovendara Kumar Joshi was unmarried) Rs.37,800/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.37,800/- = Rs.37,800/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years Rs.37,800/- x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to claimant Nos. 1 to 4 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs.8,70,400/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.8,70,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs.10,54,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.814/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation(in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 10% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.814/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation(in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 10% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.5,400/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.5,400/- = Rs.59,400/- 03. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased- Dhaneshwar Joshi Rs.19,800/- Rs.59,400/- - Rs.19,800/- = Rs.39,600/- 04. Multiplier of 11 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 52 years Rs.39,600/- x 11 = Rs.4,35,600/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.1,20,000/- Total Compensation Rs.5,85,600/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,85,600/- as total compensation in place of Rs.7,31,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. MAC No.715/2016 S.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month (as assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased- Gopal Tandon Rs.18,900/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- 04. Multiplier of 18 to be applied looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years Rs.56,700/- x 18 = Rs.10,20,600/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.2,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,50,600/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,50,600/- as total compensation in place of Rs.12,64,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18.In the result, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company (MAC No.715/2016, MAC No.717/2016, MAC No.711/2016, MAC No.814/2016, MAC No.718/2016, MAC No.716/2016 and MAC No.710/2016) are allowed in part with modification in the impugned awards to the above extent, whereas the appeals {(MAC No.1242/2016, MAC No.1243/2016, MAC No.1244/2016 & MAC No.1245/2016) as well as cross appeal in MAC No.710/2016)} filed by the claimants, being without any substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.