JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2 . This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, KAMRUT (M) in the Court of Additional District Judge-II cum Member, MACT, Kamrut (M), Gauhati dated 09.10.2018 in MAC Case No. 521 of 2015, wherein the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,28,00/-. 3 . Facts of the case in brief is that on 12.06.2014, at about 6:40 pm, while crossing the A.K. Azad Road in front of Bibekananda School, the OP No. 3 driving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-DD-8853 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera on the road, wherein, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to GMC Hospital, Gauhati where the Doctor declared him dead. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was a plumber and his monthly income was Rs. 20,000/-. The claimants being dependent family members of the deceased had filed the Claim Petition praying for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. The OP No. 1/appellant contested the claim by filing their written statement denying the rash and negligent driving and also denied the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings from both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera died in a road traffic accident on 12.06.2014 at A.K. Azad Road, Rehabari in front of Vivekananda School? (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.AS-10-DD-8853 by the driver of the said vehicle? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? (iv) What would be the amount of just compensation and by whom of the O.Ps the same is payable? Both the parties had adduced their evidence before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal found that the accident which caused the death of Mr. Prafulla Behera (late) was due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle. It was also found that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the OP No. 1/appellant Insurance Company. 4 . Both the parties had adduced their evidence before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal found that the accident which caused the death of Mr. Prafulla Behera (late) was due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle. It was also found that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the OP No. 1/appellant Insurance Company. 4 . The learned Tribunal also found that though the claimant has stated that her deceased husband had monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-, his occupation being a plumber, his income is not supported by any other evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had presumed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- by considering the daily wage of a skilled worker to be Rs. 400/-. The learned Tribunal also deducted 1/4th from the income towards personal expenses, considering the number of dependency of the deceased to be filed. The age of the deceased was found to be 45 years. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had calculated the compensation due to the claimant as follows: Annual dependency (deducting one-fourth Towards personal expenses) Multiplier Rs. 1,08,000.00 X 14 Rs. 15,12,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 15,82,000.00 The learned Tribunal thus held that the just amount of compensation entitled by the claimants would be Rs. 15,82,000/-along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the amended claim petition till realization, within30 days from ‘today’. 5. The learned Tribunal also held that though the Insurance Company had challenged the driving licence of the driver of the accident vehicle by stating that it was a fake one, and the learned Tribunal held that nowhere in the letter exhibited as exhibited ‘C’ of the Regional Transport Officer said that the driving licence of the OP No. 3 (driver) was fake but had stated that it is treated to be cancelled and invalid licence as it was not found in the digitized Smart Card Sarathi. The learned held that this communication under Right to Information Act only states that the driving licence held by the OP No. 3 was an invalid one, which cannot be equated with the analogy that he was driving the offending vehicle without any licence. The learned held that this communication under Right to Information Act only states that the driving licence held by the OP No. 3 was an invalid one, which cannot be equated with the analogy that he was driving the offending vehicle without any licence. As there is no evidence in record that the owner of the offending vehicle knowing the fact that the driving licence of the OP No. 3 was invalid, allowed to drive the vehicle, it cannot be said that there was wilful breach of the conditions of the policy of the insurance and the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid paying compensation. 6. Accordingly, the Appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 15,82,000/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the amended claim petition till realisation within 30 days from the date of the judgment. The claimants shall be entitled to have equal shares in the compensation as the claimant Nos. 4 & 5 are minors, their claims and shares shall be invested in fixed deposit/term deposit in any Nationalised Bank or Post Office till they attain maturity. 7 . Aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the learned Tribunal, Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in calculating the daily income of the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera at Rs. 400/- per day being a plumber, since the minimum wage for skilled labour in Assam at the time of the accident on 12.06.2014, was Rs. 284.55p/-. The learned counsel has produced the document showing the minimum wage in Assam w.e.f. 01.09.2014. The learned counsel submitted that the minimum wage as per the Govt. Notification at the time of the accident should therefore be applied in the instant case and therefore, the learned Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount to the claimants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kala Devi and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan and Ors . reported in 2015 2 SCC 771 , wherein, the Apex Court took the average earning of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act. The learned counsel also produced a table to highlight the recent trend of notional income taken by the Supreme Court, wherein notional income was mostly calculated on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. 8. reported in 2015 2 SCC 771 , wherein, the Apex Court took the average earning of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act. The learned counsel also produced a table to highlight the recent trend of notional income taken by the Supreme Court, wherein notional income was mostly calculated on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. 8. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the driver was holding a fake driving licence at the time of the accident. As per the notification from the Office of DTO, Mokokchung, Nagaland, the driving licence other than Smart Card Sarathi shall be treated as cancelled and invalid DL. That to have a driving licence is a mandatory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, there was a clear violation of the conditions of the Policy of insurance on the part of the owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company should not have been held liable to pay the compensation amount. 9 . Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the learned Tribunal had not erred in calculating the daily income of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per day and further submitted that the deceased was having his parents, his wife and 2 (two) children dependent upon him and therefore, he would be earning more than the meagre amount of Rs. 200/- per day. He submitted that the social status of the deceased and his family is also to be taken into consideration. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kubrabibi and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , wherein the Apex Court held that in a matter where compensation is sought even in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganised sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. Ltd. and Ors. , wherein the Apex Court held that in a matter where compensation is sought even in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganised sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The Apex Court had considered the fact that the deceased had 3 (three) dependents to be cared for and had claimed that he was working as a Mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs. 200/- per day in any event could have been taken even if the income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of documents. 10 . This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and has perused the documents on record. It is seen that it is not a disputed fact that the accident, which had occurred on 12.06.2014 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-DD-8853 by the driver of the said vehicle/OP No. 3, which had caused the death of Mr. Prafulla Behera. The age of the deceased found to be 45 years is also not disputed. It is seen that the main points to be decided in the appeal is: (i) whether the notional income of the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera, who was working as a plumber at the time of the accident, should be taken as per the Assam Minimum Wages Notification and whether the learned Tribunal was excessive in taking the notional income at Rs. 400/-per day instead of the notified Rs. 284.55p/- per day. (ii) whether the learned Tribunal had made the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimant by holding that the owner of the vehicle that there was no evidence to prove that the owner of the vehicle knowingly had allowed the driver to drive the accident vehicle, wherein the driving licence of the driver was an invalid one. 11. This Court on perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kala Devi & Ors. 11. This Court on perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kala Devi & Ors. (Supra) finds that the Apex Court had taken the notional income of the deceased who was a driver as per the Minimum Wages Act. It is also seen that Neeta, w/o Kallappa Kadolkar and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager (Supra) had relied on the notified minimum wages to calculate the notional income of the deceased in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income earned by the deceased. It is also seen in the judgment cited by the respondent in Kubrabibi & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) that the Apex Court held that - the daily income of a skilled person could have been taken as Rs. 200/- per day if the income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of document and has thus enhanced the income of the deceased from Rs. 3,000/- per month as held by the High Court to Rs. 200/- per day. 12. In view of the decisions and observations of the Apex Court, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to calculate the notional income of the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera by taking into consideration the notification of Minimum Wages applicable during the period when the accident had occurred which had caused the death of Mr. Prafulla Behera i.e. on 12.06.2014. As per the notification, the daily income of the deceased as skilled labourer is Rs. 284.55p/-, however, considering the fact that the deceased has his parents, wife and two children dependent on him, this Court finds that a just and fair compensation can be awarded if the said amount of Rs. 284.55p/- is rounded off to Rs. 300/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation entitled to the claimant is calculated as herein below: Annual income Rs. 108,000.00 Annual dependency (deducting one-fourth Towards personal expenses) Multiplier Rs. 81,000.00 X 14 Rs. 1,134,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 1,204,000.00 The claimants are thus entitled to be paid Rs. Rs. 1,204,000/- as compensation with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the amended claim petition. 13. 81,000.00 X 14 Rs. 1,134,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 1,204,000.00 The claimants are thus entitled to be paid Rs. Rs. 1,204,000/- as compensation with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the amended claim petition. 13. Regarding the issue of the validity of the driving licence of the driver, Respondent No. 7 (OP No. 3) who was driving the offending vehicle, it is seen that Apex Court in Pappu & Ors. (Supra) held that if the driver is not authorised or does not have valid licence, the insurer will not be liable to pay compensation. It was also held that even if the insurer is absolved of the liability to pay compensation, it can be directed to pay the same and recover from the owner. In the cited case, the owner of the vehicle while producing a driving licence that belonged to a person named one Joginder Singh had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the offending vehicle was driven by the said Joginder Singh. 14. With reference to the above decision of the Apex Court in the instant case, it is seen that the driving licence was found to be invalid as it was not found in the digitised Smart Card Sarathi. The owner of the vehicle/respondent No. 6, arrayed as OP No. 2 and the driver/respondent No. 7 (OP No. 3) did not appear before the learned Tribunal and the case had proceeded ex-parte against them. It is therefore, seen that the owner of the offending vehicle did not give any evidence that he was not aware that the offending vehicle was driven by a driver, who did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, this Court finds that though the offending vehicle No. AS-01-DD-8853 was comprehensively insured by respondent No. 6 (OP No. 2), however, since the driver is found to have an invalid driving licence, there was a breach of conditions in terms of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. However, to sub-serve the ends of justice, this Court find it appropriate for the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. However, to sub-serve the ends of justice, this Court find it appropriate for the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,204,000/- with the stipulated interest to the claimants in the first instance with a liberty to cover the same from the owner of the vehicle arrayed as respondent No. 6 (OP No. 2) in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the Appellant/Insurance Company is to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,204,000/- with an interest of 9% to be calculated from the date of filing the claim petition, within 1 (one) month from the date of this Order. Any amount, if deposited earlier by the appellant Insurance Company is to be deducted accordingly. Thereafter, on the deposit of the same, it shall be disbursed to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 after due verification. The claimants shall be entitled to have equal shares in the compensation. If the claimant Nos. 4 & 5 were found to be minors, their claims and shares shall be invested as stipulated by the learned Tribunal. 16. Statutory amount if any, deposited, by the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. is also allowed to be withdrawn. 17. Accordingly, MACApp. No. 47 of 2019 stands disposed of as above.