JUDGMENT : V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J. The insurance company preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 16.06.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1039 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.Parameswara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri K.Srinivasulu @ Srinu along with two pillion riders was driving a motorbike at 10:30 P.M. on 15.02.2009. From the opposite direction Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y- 6280 coming at high speed being driven by its driver rashly or negligently dashed the motorcycle. Sri K.Srinivasulu @ Srinu who was driving the motorcycle fell and sustained serious injuries and was admitted in hospital and succumbed to the injuries on 20.02.2009. The wife, their child and the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1039 of 2009 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The owner of the offending Tata Indica Car was shown as respondent No.1 and the insurance company which insured the vehicle was shown as respondent No.2. The owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter attributing total negligence on part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle. It further contended that the driver of the alleged offending car did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and there was breach of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-5Y-6280? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount against whom? 3) To what relief? 5. Before the Claims Tribunal there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 and Ex.X.1. 6. The claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act which dispensed with any pleading and proof of the fault on part of the offending vehicle. However, the learned Claims Tribunal had to grapple with the contentions raised by the insurance company about rash or negligent act on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. 6. The claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act which dispensed with any pleading and proof of the fault on part of the offending vehicle. However, the learned Claims Tribunal had to grapple with the contentions raised by the insurance company about rash or negligent act on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. Finally, it held that both vehicles were responsible for the accident in equal measures and thus, recorded that the deceased contributed 50% for the accident. 7. Before the Claims Tribunal the insurer raised contention that the driver of Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y-6280 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. As against that, the claimants contended that the driver should be presumed to hold licence and that presumption stood fortified since in Ex.A6-charge sheet the police did not allege any offence against the driver for violation of provisions of driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal concluded stating that the driver had valid and effective driving licence. 8. Ex.B.1 was the insurance policy issued for the offending Tata Indica Car. It was found to be in force at the material point of time. 9. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 24 years. That was disputed by the insured. No positive evidence was brought on record to show the real age of the deceased. It was in such circumstances the Claims Tribunal concluded that the deceased was in the age group between 30 and 35 years. Multiplier ‘17’ was applied. Monthly income of the deceased was considered as Rs.3,000/- and annual income was considered as Rs.36,000/-. Considering the ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] , the Claims Tribunal stated that towards future prospects 50% was added and it found that the claimants were entitled to Rs.7,18,500/-. However, as the facts disclosed contributory negligence to an extent of 50% on part of the deceased it granted only Rs.3,59,250/- rounded off to Rs.3,60,000/-. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, it is held that both respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, it is held that both respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Petitioners 3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) respectively and 1 st petitioner is entitled for of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only) and 2 nd petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only). Compensation payable to 2 nd petitioner shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till he attains majority. Petitioners 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw entire amount of compensation granted. First petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in the first instance and balance amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank in the denomination of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each and after lapse of two years, the 1 st petitioner is permitted to withdraw one fixed deposit every year with accrued interest thereon. After indemnifying the award, 2 nd respondent can recover the same from 1 st respondent for due realization of the amount, there will be a charge over the vehicle of first respondent TATA Indica bearing No. AP 5Y 6280, the 2 nd respondent can also seek assistance of concerned RTA and Police for seizure of the vehicle.” 10. Aggrieved by it, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 11. The first submission of the appellant is that the entire negligent leading to death of the deceased was that of the deceased and there was no negligence on part of the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y-6280 and the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the evidence. The next submission of the appellant was that the driver of the above referred car did not possess a valid driving licence and the evidence led by the insurance company through RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 was not properly appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. The next submission of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The next submission of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in stating that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The last submission is about incorrectness of considering 50% of income towards future prospects though the deceased did not have permanent job or stable income. 12. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants contended that the facts and law were properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal and no interference is called for in this appeal. 13. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal suffers from factual or legal errors requiring interference?” POINT: 14. With reference to the driving licence of the driver who drove Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y-6280 the Claims Tribunal stated that the burden was on the insurance company to show that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence. RW.2 from the office of Regional Transport Authority stated that driver belonged to Narasaraopet RTA jurisdiction, and that office did not issue any driving licence. In his cross- examination RW.2 admitted that it was possible for the driver to obtain a driving licence from another District. Insurance company got issued registered notices to driver and owner of the said Tata Indica Car. Neither of them responded to the notice. Ex.B.4 was the returned unserved notice addressed to the driver. The postal endorsement indicated that address was insufficient. Ex.A.6- charge sheet did not disclose prosecution of the driver of offending Tata Indica Car for driving a vehicle without any licence. That was the evidence made available. The fact that is required to be noticed in these types of cases is whether the owner had knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a driver who did not possess valid and effective driving licence. It was the duty of the contesting insurance company to plead and prove that. It is clear from the record that there was no tangible material brought on record by the insurance company in that regard. Therefore, it turns out that the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a driver who possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The Claims Tribunal was conscious of these aspects and therefore, it created a charge over the offending Tata Indica Car and directed the insurance company to pay first and recover from the owner later. Therefore, it turns out that the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a driver who possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The Claims Tribunal was conscious of these aspects and therefore, it created a charge over the offending Tata Indica Car and directed the insurance company to pay first and recover from the owner later. Even then the insurance company has come up with this appeal. The approach of the Claims Tribunal is rational and is based on valid consideration of material on record. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant-insurance company with reference to absence of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle is rejected. 15. As per the contents of Ex.A.2-F.I.R. and Ex.A.6-charge sheet, the assertion of the State Police is that the entire fault was on part of the driver of the offending Tata Indica Car. Added to that, there is evidence of an eyewitness/PW.2 to that effect. RW.1 and RW.2 were not the eyewitnesses to the subject matter accident. On proper reading of all this evidence it was quite possible for one to hold that the subject matter accident was out of rash or negligent driving of driver of offending Tata Indica Car alone. However, considering the fact that it was a case of head on collision between two vehicles, the Claims Tribunal stated that even the deceased contributed to the accident in equal measure. Therefore, the contention of the insurance company that the whole fault was on part of the deceased could not be countenanced as the evidence does not permit it. 16. The evidence on record indicated that the deceased was a person attending agricultural works and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. That is questioned by the insurance company in this appeal. It did not lead any evidence positively showing either the occupation of the deceased or his possible income per month. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal was right in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and to conclude that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the contention raised by the insurance company about the income of the deceased is negatived. 17. Coming to the age of the deceased, there was evidence of PW.1 saying that the deceased was aged 24 years. Based on the submissions made on behalf of the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal held that the deceased could have been aged between 30 and 35 years. 17. Coming to the age of the deceased, there was evidence of PW.1 saying that the deceased was aged 24 years. Based on the submissions made on behalf of the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal held that the deceased could have been aged between 30 and 35 years. It applied multiplier ‘17’. As per the ratio in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier ‘17’ is applied for age group between 26 and 30 years. It shall be recorded here that RW.1 and RW.2 had no personal acquaintance with the deceased and had no records to show the age of such agricultural coolie. The best people to speak about it were only his family members. The evidence of PW.1, who is the wife of the deceased, has to be considered as most probable in disclosing the age. There was no factual basis for the Claims Tribunal to conclude that he was aged between 30 and 35 years. For those who are aged between 30 and 35 years, multiplier ‘16’ applies as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra). Considering the evidence of PW.1, in the opinion of this Court, the deceased could be stated to be age between 26 and 30 years for which multiplier ‘17’ applies as per Sarla Verma’s case. In that view of the matter the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal does not require any change. There are no merits in this appeal. The point is answered against the appellant. 18. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated 16.06.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1039 of 2009 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.