Order : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Appellant herein, inter-alia, seeks setting aside of the award rendered vide judgment/order dated 30.09.2022 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Udaipur in case No.608/2019 vide which a compensation of Rs.10,48,952/- has been determined in favor of the respondents. 2. The brief facts are that on 02.08.2017 at about 11.00 A.M., deceased Lalit Kumar employed as a Khalasi, was sitting in truck number RJ-27-GA-9040, when it’s driver respondent No. 3 Kailash, driving the said truck negligently and carelessly, went on the wrong side of the Sukoli village –Mumbai Goa Highway. It hit a dumper-truck number MH-06-BD-3098 coming from the front and over-turned. Lalit Kumar died due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by the collision of the truck with the dumper-truck. 2.1 The respondent Nos.1 & 2 (claimants) are the parents of Lalit Kumar deceased. In their claim petition, it is stated that the deceased (21 years old at the time of the accident/death) worked as a helper on truck number RJ-27-GA-9040 of Respondent no. 4 (registered owner) earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000 and a daily allowance of Rs. 100, totaling Rs. 12,000/-. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income from the deceased, loss of future income, mental anguish, loss of love, affection, respect, and support from their son and future mental anguish and loss of partnership. The claimants thus sought compensation under various heads aggregating Rs.39,38,000 from the appellant – Insurance Company and respondents No.3 (Driver) and 4 (Owner). 2.2 Respondent No.3 pleaded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the dumper truck and not due to his fault. 2.3 Respondent No. 4 (Ashok Kumar) pleaded that before the date of accident, he had sold/handed over possession of the truck to respondent No. 5 (Meetha Lal) and, therefore, in any case, he was not liable to pay any compensation. 2.4 The appellant - Insurance company filed a reply to the claim petition denying the facts mentioned therein stating that no accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent No.4. In any case, it did not occur due to the fault or negligence of the respondent driver, but due to the fault and negligence of the dumper driver. The compensation amount demanded is inflated. In any case, it did not occur due to the fault or negligence of the respondent driver, but due to the fault and negligence of the dumper driver. The compensation amount demanded is inflated. At the time of the incident, the respondent No.3 - driver did not have a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle in question and at the time of the incident, the vehicle in question was being operated without a permit and fitness, due to which the appellant - insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to violation of the terms of the insurance policy. 2.5 Respondent No.5 remained ex-parte in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. 3. Based on respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,48,952/- from the appellant, respondents No. 4 and 5 jointly and severally in favor of the claimant-respondents No. 1-2 with interest @ 6% per annum from 05.08.2019, the date of filing the claim petition. 4. The insurance company is in appeal seeking setting aside of the award against it and alternatively for reduction of the compensation amount. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the claimants did not prove the employment of the deceased with the registered owner of the offending truck; it’s driver (respondent No. 3 did not hold a valid licence for driving the said vehicle at the relevant time; the monthly minimum wages of unskilled worker were Rs. 5,382/- but the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,210/- and thus awarded excess compensation in favour of the claimants for loss of dependency income. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant - respondents refutes the aforesaid contentions and supports the award. 7. Having heard and perused the award, I am not inclined to agree to any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Let us see how. First and foremost, perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal, inter alia, held that the documentary evidence, including the incident panchnama (Exh. 3), inquest panchnama (Exh. 4 / 4A), post- mortem panchnama (Exh. 5 / 5A), news reports dated 02.08.2017 (Exh. 8 / 8A), and the reply dated 02.08.2017 (Exh. 23 / 23A), establishes without doubt that truck RJ-27- GA-9040 caused the accident. 3), inquest panchnama (Exh. 4 / 4A), post- mortem panchnama (Exh. 5 / 5A), news reports dated 02.08.2017 (Exh. 8 / 8A), and the reply dated 02.08.2017 (Exh. 23 / 23A), establishes without doubt that truck RJ-27- GA-9040 caused the accident. Based on the testimony of witnesses A/W 1–3, the truck’s registration certificate (Exh. 9) and the insurance certificate (Exh. 15), the driver at the time of the accident, the registered owner and the insurer at the time of accident were also confirmed, and the accident occurred within the insured period. 8.1. Regarding ownership and possession, it was though claimed that the truck was sold to Respondent No. 5 (Mithalal Dangi) through an agreement dated 05.05.2017 and the possession was handed before the accident. However, no evidence was produced to support this claim. Therefore, the tribunal rightly concluded that Respondent No. 4 remained the actual owner and possessor of the truck at the time of the accident. 8.2. On the issue of fault, the Tribunal held that the facts in the spot panchnama (Exh. 3) and the news report (Exh. 8 / 8A) support that the accident happened due to the negligence of truck driver Kailash. The respondents though averred that the dumper driver was at fault, however, the insurance company’s witnesses (NAW1 Abhishek Garg and NAW2 Anil Mathur) provided no evidence supporting this claim. A charge sheet (Exh. 1 / 1A) was also filed against the truck driver in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck RJ-27-GA- 9040 by the Respondent driver. Deceased Lalit died from the injuries sustained in the accident, which is confirmed by the post-mortem report (Exh. 6). Accordingly, Lalit’s death is established as being caused by the accident injuries, held the Tribunal. 9. In my opinion the learned Tribunal has discussed the material on record thoroughly, given detailed cogent and convincing reasons based on the facts and record of the case for it’s findings on various issues. There seems no illegality either on facts or law in it’s findings. I am inclined to agree to the same. 10. The materials including the FIR, spot inspection report, inquest papers and the charge-sheet clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck RJ-27-GA-9040 by its driver Kailash. There seems no illegality either on facts or law in it’s findings. I am inclined to agree to the same. 10. The materials including the FIR, spot inspection report, inquest papers and the charge-sheet clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck RJ-27-GA-9040 by its driver Kailash. The truck had crossed over to the wrong side of the Mumbai–Goa Highway and collided head-on with the oncoming dumper. These contemporaneous documents consistently attribute fault to the truck driver, and the respondents produced no evidence whatsoever to show negligence on the part of the dumper driver. Even the insurance company’s own witnesses offered no testimony contradicting the police investigation. The Tribunal therefore rightly accepted that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the truck driver. 11. The Tribunal also correctly held the registered owner liable. Respondent No. 4 merely claimed to have sold the truck to Respondent No. 5, but no sale agreement or proof of transfer was produced. The registration certificate continued to show Respondent No. 4 as the owner, and Respondent No. 5 remained ex parte. Unless the transfer is proved and recorded in the RTO’s records, the registered owner continues to be liable for the purposes of motor accident claims. The Tribunal was therefore justified in rejecting this unsubstantiated plea and fastening liability upon the registered owner as well as the insurer. 12. The defense raised by the insurance company regarding invalid license was also rightly rejected. The extracts of the license produced by the insurer themselves showed that the driver was authorized to drive LMV/non-transport vehicles up to 2030 and held a transport vehicle endorsement valid up to 10.01.2025. The insurer failed to establish any period during which the license was not valid or renewed. The testimony of the District Transport Officer confirmed the validity of the license. In the absence of clear and affirmative proof of a policy breach, the insurer cannot avoid its liability. The Tribunal therefore correctly concluded that the driver possessed a valid and effective license at the time of the accident, and the insurer’s defense was unsustainable. 13. With respect to assessment of income, the Tribunal adopted a fair and legally recognized method. Thus, the petitioners were held entitled by the Tribunal to receive a total compensation of Rs. The Tribunal therefore correctly concluded that the driver possessed a valid and effective license at the time of the accident, and the insurer’s defense was unsustainable. 13. With respect to assessment of income, the Tribunal adopted a fair and legally recognized method. Thus, the petitioners were held entitled by the Tribunal to receive a total compensation of Rs. 10,48,952/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two), computed as blow:- S. no Item No. Amount 1. In the case of dependency and loss of income 9,38,952 2. Grief and Deprivation of Love 80,000 3. Funeral Expense 15,000 4. Loss of Estate 15,000 Total 10,48,952/- 14. Although the claimants stated that the deceased earned Rs.12,000 per month as a cleaner, no documentary proof was available, which is common in such occupations. The Tribunal therefore rightly applied the minimum wages applicable in 2017 for unskilled workers i.e. Rs.207 per day. This resulted in a monthly income of Rs.6,210, which is neither excessive nor arbitrary. The Tribunal then applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr ., (2009) 6 SCC 121 granting 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% for personal expenses since the deceased was unmarried, and applying the multiplier of 18 suitable for a 19-year-old. The final calculation of dependency at Rs.9,38,952 is mathematically correct and warrants no interference. 15. The assessment of the income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation awarded also seem just and fair. The judgment in Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar , (2022) 15 SCC 572 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable herein since the insurance company failed to prove as a fact that the driver of the offending truck did not have the valid license. The insurance company presented Exhibit A3, an extract of the driver Kailash Meena’s licence, which shows that he was authorized to drive a motorcycle with gear and an LMV from 26.04.2010 to 25.04.2030, and was authorized to drive a transport vehicle from 31.12.2013 to 30.12.2016. Exhibit A3 also mentions a later entry of transport-vehicle licence validity period from 11.01.2020 to 10.01.2025. Exhibit A3 also mentions a later entry of transport-vehicle licence validity period from 11.01.2020 to 10.01.2025. District Transport Officer A.W.2 Anil Mathur, during cross-examination, confirmed that Exhibit 19 was issued by him and that the licence was valid up to 25.04.2030 for non-transport vehicles and up to 10.01.2025 for transport vehicles. The tribunal rightly held that neither the witnesses nor Exhibit A3 clarify the period, if any, during which the driver’s transport-vehicle licence was not renewed. Exhibit A4, another licence extract, additionally shows the respondent driver’s transport-vehicle licence as valid from 30.12.2016 to 11.01.2020. Taken together, Exhibits A4 and 19 do not show that the driver held an expired licence at the time of the accident. Instead, they indicate that he possessed a valid and effective licence to drive the truck involved. Therefore, the insurance company’s argument is rejected being factually incorrect and thus not unacceptable. 16. In the premise, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the contrary are not substantiated by the facts and record of the case. 17. The Tribunal also awarded conventional sums under the heads of loss of consortium to parents, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, strictly following the Supreme Court’s directives in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati , (2020) 9 SCC 644 and Pranay Sethi ( supra ). The total compensation of Rs.10,48,952 is therefore entirely just, reasonable, and in accordance with settled law. 18. As already noted, the Tribunal’s findings are fully supported by the evidence on record and the view taken is both legally sound and factually justified. The Tribunal has given detailed, cogent and well-reasoned findings based on documentary evidence and established legal principles. There is no perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. 19. As a result of above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award. 20. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.