Koshy, J.

Whether the insurance company can avoid liability, if the driver of the insured vehicle was having only a learner’s licence at the time of accident is the question to be answered in this case. Before answering the question, we may consider the facts of the case.

2. Appellant was the second respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.430 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent filed a claim petition stating that her mother, Smt. Bhargavi Amma, while walking through the public road, was hit by a scooter bearing registration No.KL-01/7321 driven by the appellant and insured by the fourth respondent in the O.P. As a result of the hit Bhargavi Amma suffered serious injuries. It is also stated that the vehicle is owned by the second respondent and it was insured by the third respondent (Addl. Fourth respondent in the O.P.). According to the first respondent, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant. The deceased was aged 65 years at the time of accident. Against the claim of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal found that compensation payable will be Rs.89,540/-. It was also found that second respondent had no valid driving licence; but, only a learner’s licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the same in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others (AIR 1996 SC 1150) (1996 (2) KLT SN 53, case No.59). There, the Supreme Court held that unless the driver is having a valid driving licnece, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the appellant was directed to pay compensation.

3. The appellant is challenging the award on three grounds: First, there is no negligence on the part of the appellant; secondly, it was contended that the amount awarded was very high; and thirdly, it was contended that if she is liable to pay compensation, since the vehicle was insured, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

4. With regard to the first ground, the contention of the appellant was that the deceased fell down due to her old age and the accident happened due to the carelessness of the deceased. The deceased was walking through Punnakamughal Thirumala public road, when the scooter hit her. From the totality of the evidence and the fact that the appellant was charge-sheeted and on the facts of the case, according to the tribunal, negligence can be presumed and the accident happened due to the negligence of the appellant. Ext.A1 is the First Information Report. Ext.A2 is the scene mahazar and Ext.A6 is the charge sheet. Even though the appellant was finally acquitted by Ext.B3 judgment due to lack of evidence, on preliminary investigation, the police found that the appellant was negligent. There is no material to show that the deceased fell down due to her old age. In fact, the oral evidence, Exts.A1 and A2, the scene mahazar and the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector show that the scooter hit the deceased and she fell down. If she was not negligent accident would not have happened. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the finding of negligence.

5. With regard to the amount of compensation, according to the claimant, the deceased was getting Rs.2,300/- per month as a vegetable vendor. But, there is no evidence regarding the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income, deducted one-third and loss of dependency income was calculated at Rs.1,334/-. Since she was aged 65 years, multiplier 5 was taken and calculated loss of dependency income at Rs.80,040/-. She did not suffer an immediate death. She died in the hospital later. For pain and suffering, transport to the hospital, funeral expenses etc. Rs.9,500/- was added. Thus total compensation awarded was Rs.89,540/-. Since the Tribunal has taken only 5 as the multiplier, considering the totality of the case, we are of th