JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gondal at Dhoraji in MACP No. 1184 of 2000, the insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal-

2.1 It is the case of the respondent-original claimants that the deceased Dineshbhai had hired rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-V-3709 to sell his vegetables from Supedi to Mahuva. It is the case of the respondents-original claimants that when the said rickshaw reached near Manekvada Ghatiyan at about 5.00 PM, the rickshaw turned turtle because of the rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw and the deceased Dineshbhai sustained serious injuries and succumbed on the spot. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station at exhibit 33 and the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

2.2 It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. on the date of the accident. The wife of the deceased Shantaben was examined at exhibit 29 and the claimant also relied upon plethora of documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 33, Inquest panchnama at exhibit 34, panchnama at exhibit 35, PM report of the deceased at exhibit 36, RC book of the offending vehicle at exhibit 37, certificate of the driver from RTO at exhibit 38, insurance policy of the rickshaw at exhibit 39. The Tribunal considered the plea raised by the appellant-insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive a three wheeler, which was not meant to drive a transport vehicle and as the driver was driving a auto-rickshaw, delivery van, he had no valid license as there was no such endorsement in the license. Relying upon the certificate of the RTO at exhibit 38, the appellant contended that there was no valid subsisting license and therefore contended that the appellant-insurance company was not liable to indemnify the claimants and contended that the insurance company deserves to be exonerated. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- as compensation under the head of Future Loss of income and also further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under different conventional heads and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition and also further ordered and directed the appellant-insurance company to deposit the amount as awarded within a period of 1 month with interest and permitted the appellant to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard Dr. Vrushang Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other parties. I have also perused the original record and proceedings.

4. Dr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that it is proved beyond doubt before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the rickshaw did not possess a valid license. Dr. Mehta further contended that there was no endorsement in the license to drive a transport vehicle and therefore, the appellant-insurance company should be exonerated completely and the owner be made liable. Dr. Mehta, learned advocate contended that the Tribunal also committed an error in directing the appellant to pay first and then recover from the owner. On the aforesaid sole ground, Dr. Mehta contended that the appeal be allowed. Dr. Mehta further candidly submitted that the ratio laid down by the A