JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 16.05.2012 passed in O.P.No.247 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur (for short “the learned MACT”). The claim was allowed against the owner-cum-driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 02 X 5958 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). 2. Dissatisfied by the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company, the claimants are before this Court. 3. The claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The learned MACT found the entitlement of the claimants at Rs.2,00,200/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- but dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license at relevant time. Factual Matrix: 5(i). One Kondi Bheemanna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 60 years, boarded the offending vehicle on 29.12.2009 at about 10.00 A.M. for travelling to Narpala. When the offending vehicle was on the road from Diggumarri to Narpala, within the limits of Narpala Police Station, Anantapuram District, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control due to high speed and negligent driving and the offending vehicle turned turtle, whereby the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to injuries while shifting him to the hospital. 5(ii). A case in Crime No.147 of 2009 was registered and subsequently charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. 5(iii). The deceased was aged about „60? years, working as Cobbler and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by the date of accident. 5(iv). Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They lost valuable financial support and also dependency. 5(v). Since Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver, the tortfeasor, and as the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, both are liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.2: 7(i). They lost valuable financial support and also dependency. 5(v). Since Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver, the tortfeasor, and as the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, both are liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.2: 7(i). The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective policy issued for the offending vehicle, compliance with the conditions of policy, valid and effective driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and entitlement of the claimants for compensation. 7(ii). It is also asserted by Respondent No.2 that all the claimants are not dependents. 7(iii). The learned MACT framed issues touching the negligence and entitlement of claimants for compensation, as well as the liability of the respondents, and held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants after referring to the evidence of PW.1 and documents Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Charge sheet. 7(iv). With regard to the liability of the respondents to pay compensation, since Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver remained ex parte, he is found liable. 7(v). Learned MACT observing that the respondent Insurance Company issued notice for production of the driving license and as the same was not produced, an adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle found that Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. 8. Learned MACT while quantifying the compensation, taken income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum, adopted multiplier „8? and deducted 1/3 rd of the same towards personal expenditure and found loss of dependency at Rs.1,90,700/-. Awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 st petitioner / wife of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and the total entitlement of the claimants rounded to Rs.2,00,000/-, by referring to the claim made by the claimants at Rs.2,00,000/-. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 9(i). Learned MACT erred in dismissing the claim against Respondent No.2 Insurance Company and failed to take note that no positive evidence is adduced by the Respondent-Insurance Company to show that there was no driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle. 9(ii). Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 9(i). Learned MACT erred in dismissing the claim against Respondent No.2 Insurance Company and failed to take note that no positive evidence is adduced by the Respondent-Insurance Company to show that there was no driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle. 9(ii). The learned MACT erred in appreciating that the burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to show the absence of driving license. 9(iii). The learned MACT also erred in appreciating that more compensation can be awarded than claimed if the claimants are entitled. Taking of income at Rs.3000/- and quantification of compensation are irrational. For the Respondent-Insurance Company. 10. The learned MACT has rightly appreciated the effort of the Insurance Company in issuing notice for production of driving license and the consequence of lapse on the part of the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle in producing the same and the consequential effect of violations of policy conditions. Therefore, there are no grounds to overturn the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company. 11. Extensive arguments are submitted by both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident is the outcome of the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver viz. the Respondent No.1? 2) Whether the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on the ground of absence of driving license? 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 13. P.W.2- Minigi Obilesu is the informant under Ex.A1-FIR, and he is cited as LW.1 in Ex.A4-charge sheet. Evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem certificate and Ex.A4-charge sheet are found sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle particularly when they are seen in the light of the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, and also the observations made by the Hon?ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , [ 2009 (13) SCC 530 ] vide para No.15. Therefore, the point relating to negligence answered in favour of the appellant claimants and against the respondents. Point No.2: 14. The Insurance Company relied on evidence of one C. Imran, R.W.1, working as Relationship Executive of Insurance Company who has admitted that the Policy was in force by the date of accident and deceased was third party to the Insurance Company. He has also admitted that no documents are filed to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license by the date of accident. It was specifically suggested to him that the driver was possessing valid driving license. The evidence of PW.2 and Ex.B1- notice dated 14.07.2011 and Ex.B2-postal acknowledgment gained favourable nod of the learned MACT. This was a notice got issued to cause production of driving license before the Court suggesting that adverse inference will be drawn. Whether the duty of the Insurance Company ends with issuing notice is an important question. It is not the case that the charge sheet was laid with the allegation that there was no driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act or any other related provisions touching absence of driving licence are not invoked in the charge sheet. MVI report is not produced. The Investigation Officer is also not summoned to show that the investigation officer has collected any information as to absence of driving license. No convincing efforts but the learned MACT has readily accepted to draw adverse inference on the strength of notice issued under Ex.B2. 16. It is pertinent to note that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the claimants are third parties. No steps are taken through Court process for production of the documents from any other of the sources like from RTA officials or at least from the Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver. Therefore, legally acceptable efforts from Insurance Company are not found. Burden to prove absence of driving license lies with the insurer, no convincing evidence is produced. 17. It is relevant to note the observations of the Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh , [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ] , that the burden to prove the violation lies with the Insurance Company as to breach of conditions of policy, vide para Nos.66 to 70, which read as follows: 66. 17. It is relevant to note the observations of the Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh , [ (2004) 3 SCC 297 ] , that the burden to prove the violation lies with the Insurance Company as to breach of conditions of policy, vide para Nos.66 to 70, which read as follows: 66. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act leads to only one conclusion that the usual rule is that once the assured proves that the accident is covered by the compulsory insurance clause, it is for the insurer to prove that it comes within an exception. 67. In MacGillivray on Insurance Law it is stated: “25-82. Burden of Proof.—Difficulties may arise in connection with the burden of proving that the facts of any particular case fall within this exception. The usual rule is that once the assured has proved that the case comes within the general risk, it is for the insurers to prove that it comes within an exception. It has, therefore, been suggested in some American decisions that, where the insurers prove only that the assured exposed himself to danger and there is no evidence to show why he did so, they cannot succeed, because they have not proved that his behaviour was voluntary or that the danger was unnecessary. Since an extremely heavy burden is imposed on the insurers if they have to prove the state of mind of the assured, it has been suggested in Canadian decisions that the court should presume that the assured acted voluntarily and that, where he does an apparently dangerous and foolish act, such danger was unnecessary, until the contrary is shown. In practical terms, therefore, the onus does in fact lie on the claimant to explain the conduct of the assured where there is no apparent reason for exposing himself to an obvious danger.” 68. In Rukmani v. New India Assurance Co. In practical terms, therefore, the onus does in fact lie on the claimant to explain the conduct of the assured where there is no apparent reason for exposing himself to an obvious danger.” 68. In Rukmani v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ (1998) 9 SCC 160 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 244 : 1999 ACJ 171 ] this Court while upholding the defences available to the insurer to the effect that the vehicle in question was not being driven by a person holding a licence, held that the burden of the insurer would not be discharged when the evidence which was brought on record was that the Inspector of Police in his examination-in-chief merely stated: “My enquiry revealed that the 1st respondent did not produce the licence to drive the abovesaid scooter. The 1st respondent even after my demand did not submit the licence since he was not having it.” (SCC p. 161, para 3) 69. The proposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. (See Sohan Lal Passi [ (1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 871] .) 70. Apart from the above, we do not intend to lay down anything further i.e. degree of proof which would satisfy the aforementioned requirement inasmuch as the same would indisputably depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It will also depend upon the terms of contract of insurance. Each case may pose a different problem which must be resolved having regard to a large number of factors governing the case including conduct of parties as regards duty to inform, correct disclosure, suppression, fraud on the insurer etc. It will also depend upon the fact as to who is the owner of the vehicle and the circumstances in which the vehicle was being driven by a person having no valid and effective licence. No hard-and-fast rule can, therefor, be laid down. If in a given case there exists sufficient material to draw an adverse inference against either the insurer or the insured, the Tribunal may do so. No hard-and-fast rule can, therefor, be laid down. If in a given case there exists sufficient material to draw an adverse inference against either the insurer or the insured, the Tribunal may do so. The parties alleging breach must be held to have succeeded in establishing the breach of conditions of the contract of insurance, on the part of the insurer by discharging its burden of proof. The Tribunal, there cannot be any doubt, must arrive at a finding on the basis of the materials available on records. 18. Therefore, the stand of the Insurance Company found not tenable. Findings of the learned MACT in that connection are found not tenable. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation. Point No.3.: Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 19(i). Hon?ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. (ii). Hon?ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to age of the deceased. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 20(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017(16) SCC 680 case guided for adding of future prospect. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 20(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017(16) SCC 680 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. (ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon?ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 21. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in qrance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , Hon?ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. d) Just Compensation: 22. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ] , the Hon?ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just?. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just?. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just?. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just?. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. 23. Claimant No.1 alone is the dependant and the others being major children are not dependents but they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection or loss of parental consortium. The age of the deceased is "60? years as per the Inquest Report. Multiplier applicable for the age "60? years is "9?. For the age group "60? years, future prospects need not be added. The deceased is said to be a Cobbler. So his income, upon considering the socio-economic status of the year 2009, can be taken at Rs.3000/- per month and the same comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. If 1/3 rd of the same is deducted towards personal expenditure, his contribution can be taken at Rs.24,000/-. Upon application of multiplier "9?, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,16,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 9). 24. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation awarded under other heads requires revisit, which shall be as follows: Sl. No. Head Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,16,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (for five claimants) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each x5) 3. No. Head Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,16,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (for five claimants) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each x5) 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.4,46,000/- 25. For the reasons aforesaid, it is found that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 26. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon?ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon?ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ] , at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors . , 2020 (04) SCC 413 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claimpetitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , [ (2019) 2 SCC 192 ] at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5 . Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” Point No.4: 27. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 to 3, point No.4 is answered as follows: In the result, (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) Rs.2,86,000/- is apportioned to the share of Claimant No.1 / the wife of the deceased with proportionate interest. (iv) Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for apportionment of Rs.40,000/- each with proportionate interest. (v) All the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (vi) Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. (vii) Time for deposit is two months. (viii) The claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (ix) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.