JUDGMENT : (C. Pratheep Kumar, J.) The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 849/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellants in MACA 344/2016. The 2 nd respondent in the OP is the appellant in MACA 1839/2015. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The O.P. was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the wife, child and mother of deceased Manoj who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.12.2010. According to the petitioners, on 03.12.2010, at about 2.45 p.m., while the deceased was riding pillion on a motor cycle through Arakkunnam – Piravom public road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-40 B 4430 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are the registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4 th respondent and additional respondents 5 to 7 are the insurer and the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.10,00,000/-. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,26,585/- rounded to Rs.11,26,600/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal. 4. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 5. Heard Sri.K.N.Abhilash and Sri.Domson J.Vattakkuzhy, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Sri.Sebastian Varghese, Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent/5 th respondent in MACA 1839/2015 and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, Standing Counsel for 4 th respondent/6 th respondent in MACA 1839/2015. 6. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. 6. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to them, the deceased was working as mason earning Rs.7500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-. 7. In this case the accident occurred on 3.12.2010. The validity of the driving licence of the 1 st respondent expired on 6.9.2010. Thereafter it was renewed only on 14.12.2010, 12 days after the accident. Therefore it can be seen that during the time of accident and also within the grace period of one month, the 1 st respondent did not have valid driving licence. He has renewed the licence almost three months after the expiry of its validity period. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297 , would argue that mere absence of valid driving licence on the date of accident alone is sufficient to exonerate the insurer either against the insured or the third party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying upon a five Judge Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Poulose , 2015 (1) KLT 682 (LB), would argue that if the driving licence is not renewed within the statutory period of 30 days, it cannot be stated that the driver was 'duly licenced' under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the M.V.Act. 8. In the decision in Swaran Singh (supra), after analyzing the provisions of the M.V.Act and the case law on the point, the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after interpreting Section 149(2)(a)(ii) viz-a-viz, the proviso to sub-sectin 4 and 5 of the M.V.Act summarised the findings in paragraph 102 as follows : The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are 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) 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 driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a) (ii) of section 149, have 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, 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 said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance 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 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 insured 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 insured 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 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. 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 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 proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against 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. For the reasons aforementioned, these petitions are dismissed but without any order as to costs. 9. In the decision in Poulose (supra), a five-Judge Bench of this Court was considering the question “whether a driving licence which stood expired on the date of the road traffic accident and was not renewed within the statutory period would fulfill the requirement of 'duly licenced' under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the M.V.Act) ? After analyzing the scope of Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the M.V.Act and various precedents including a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), answered the above question in paragraph 27 as follows : "In the result: (a) We hold that the decision of the Full Bench in Oriental Insurance Company v. Paulose (cited supra) that driving licence continues to exist in spite of expiry of its validity period unless it has been shown that the licensee had been disqualified to hold one does not lay down the correct law. Therefore, it is over - ruled. Therefore, it is over - ruled. (b) We further hold that a driving licence which stood expired on the date of the road traffic accident and not subsequently renewed within the statutory period of thirty days would not fulfill the requirement of "duly licensed" under S.149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. (c) The appeal is disposed of allowing the appellant insurance company, who has already satisfied the award, to recover the amount paid by it to the first respondent, from the second respondent who is the owner - cum - driver." 10. In the decision in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, AIR 2023 SC 5545 , the Tribunal found that the driver of the vehicle had a fake driving licence and opined that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount with liberty to recover the same from the owners of the vehicle. In appeal, the High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal to the extent it granted right of recovery to the insurer. Dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :- “an insurance company would be required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence and in the event an insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of the conditions of the policy on the part of the insured, such an insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.” 11. In the decision in Poulose (supra) a five-judge Bench of this Court after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), had unequivocally held that if on the date of the accident, the validity of the driving licence stood expired and it was not renewed within the statutory period of 30 days, it is to be treated that the driver had no valid driving licence. In the above circumstances, in this case, it is to be held that on the date of the accident, the 1 st respondent had no valid driving licence and as such, the insurer is entitled to get an order of pay and recovery. 12. It is true that the petitioner could not prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP. It is proved that the deceased was a mason by profession. 12. It is true that the petitioner could not prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP. It is proved that the deceased was a mason by profession. Since the petitioner could not prove the income of the deceased, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2011 (13) SCC 236 , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,500/-. 13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 39 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and the multiplier to be applied is 15, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Since the deceased was married who left behind 3 dependants, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.12,60,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.75000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and each dependent is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs.145200 /- (48,400 x 3). 15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others , (2020)9 SCC 644 . Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case 13 days after the accident. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case 13 days after the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lesser side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.16,73,085/- as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Compensation for loss of expected future earnings/loss of dependency 7,20,000 12,60,000 2 Pain and sufferings 15000 30000 3 Medical treatment expenses 1,96,585 196585 4 Funeral and allied expenses 25000 18150 5 Loss of estate 10000 18150 6 Transportation charges 5000 5000 7 Loss of consortium 80000 145200 8 Loss of love and affection 75000 Nil Total 1126585 16,73,085/- Amount enhanced 42500 19. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of directing respondent No.3 to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,73,085/- (Rupees sixteen lakh seventy three thousand eighty five only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 156 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 20. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules and the 3 rd respondent is permitted to recover the amount from the 2 nd respondent.