Order : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in M.A.C No. 16 of 2013, whereby and whereunder liability to pay compensation of Rs.7,07,500/- has been fixed on the Insurance-Company. 2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 2018 has been preferred by the Insurance- Company, whereas M.A. No. 660 of 2018 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The facts are not in dispute that on 18.02.2013 at 5:30 p.m., Wakil Ganjhu met with a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing registration No. WB- 41D-1463 in which he sustained fatal injuries and died. It is also not in dispute that the said truck was under the insurance cover of the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. The Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and assessed the compensation taking Rs.4500/- as monthly income of the deceased from the occupation as a Mason. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that there was a fundamental breach in the term of insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle namely, Md. Parvej Alam, was not having a valid driving licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the time of accident. As per the case of the claimants, accident took place by the truck, which is a heavy motor vehicle, however, the driving licence, which was adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.7, shows that it was issued for light motor vehicle and was valid from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2030. 6. In this view of the matter, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3055 of 2008) , the Insurance-Company will not be liable to pay the compensation amount under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, 1988. The ratio laid down in 2007 (4) JCR 129 is also to the same effect. 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has entered into an appearance by filing Vakalatnama. 8. The ratio laid down in 2007 (4) JCR 129 is also to the same effect. 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has entered into an appearance by filing Vakalatnama. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company that initially the driving licence was issued to the driver for driving light motor vehicle which was subsequently renewed by endorsement. The detail of the driving licence was adduced into evidence and marked as Annexure-A from which it will be evident that the driver was permitted to drive heavy motor vehicle with effect from 20.09.2012, whereas, the accident took place on 19.02.2013. Meaning thereby at the time of accident the driver had a valid driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle. No contrary evidence has been led with respect to Annexure-A filed by way of counter-affidavit. 9. In this view of the matter, the question for consideration before this Court is whether there was a breach of term of policy of insurance on account of not having a valid driving licence to the driver at the time of accident. Law is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and has been followed subsequently a later judgment. It has been held by the Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2022 SCC Online SC 2119) that when an owner is hiring a driver, he, therefore, has to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which, on the face of it, looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has, in fact, been issued by competent authority or not. 10. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149(2) (a) (ii). The Insurance-Company could not then be absolved from liability. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the driver had a valid driving licence and the subsequent documents, which have been adduced before this Court, go to show that he was having not only a driving licence to drive, but it was also for a heavy motor vehicle, as discussed above. 11. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the driver had a valid driving licence and the subsequent documents, which have been adduced before this Court, go to show that he was having not only a driving licence to drive, but it was also for a heavy motor vehicle, as discussed above. 11. Under the circumstance, the plea as raised on behalf of the Insurance- Company regarding breach of term of insurance policy, is not sustainable and accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 2018 fails. Consequently, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 2018 stands dismissed . Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of. 12. So far Miscellaneous Appeal No. 660 of 2018 is concerned, which has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants that no compensation under the head of future prospects has been awarded by the learned tribunal in terms of ratio laid by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the age of the deceased was 28 years as stated by the claimant (C.W.-1) in her examination- in-chief). This plea cannot be accepted for the reason that in the cross- examination, the very same witness has stated that her husband was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. 14. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company that the loss of consortium has been allowed to be Rs.1,00,000/- which is not as per the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra). 15. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation under the heading of future prospects which has not been awarded in the present case. Taking the age of the deceased to be 40 years at the time of accident, since his age ranges between 40 to 50 years, therefore, the future prospects will be 25% as per Pranay Sethi case (supra). Taking the age of the deceased to be 40 years at the time of accident, since his age ranges between 40 to 50 years, therefore, the future prospects will be 25% as per Pranay Sethi case (supra). The compensation will finally be awarded under the following heads as per the table given below: Annual Income Rs.54,000/- Annual dependency after deducting 1/4th on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs.40,500/- Loss of dependency on taking a multiplier of 15 Rs. 6,07,500/- Future prospect @ 25% Rs. 1,51,875/- Non-conventional head Rs.77,000/- Total Rs. 8,36,375/- 16. Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of Rs.8,36,375/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application. It is submitted that the awarded amount has not been paid to the claimants. Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of the compensation amount within a month of this order failing which the learned Tribunal will proceed as per law for execution of the award. 17. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. M.A. No. 660 of 2018 is partly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.