JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag dated 23.04.2014.

2. Briefly the facts, as are evident from record, are that deceased Tariq Ahmad Mir while driving Motorcycle bearing registration No. JK03-397 was hit by Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK03-3439 at Levdoora, Qazigund. As a result of the accident he sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital Qazigund, however, considering seriousness of the injuries suffered he was referred to SKIMS Soura, Srinagar. He died at SKIMS on the same day. It was claimed that Tata Sumo vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. It was owned by Mohammad Hussain Bhat. It was claimed that the deceased was a young boy of 22 years. He was a businessman by profession having monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. He was running his own saw mill. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs was claimed. The claimants are parents, sisters and brothers of the deceased. The factum of accident and registration of FIR have not been denied.

3. In the claim petition respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were the driver and owner of the Tata Sumo whereas the respondent No. 3 was the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 4 was impleaded, claiming that he was the buyer of the Tata Sumo from respondent No. 2. After service only the Insurance Company and the first owner of the vehicle, namely, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the claim petitioner appeared, whereas the driver and the buyer of the vehicle i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte on 23.12.2010. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether on 20.04.2005 at Levdoora Qazigund the respondent No. 1 was driving Tata Sumo bearing No. JK03-3439 rashly and negligently, caused death of Tariq Ahmad Mir who was plying motorcycle bearing No. JK03-397? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what extent the petitioners/representatives are entitled to receive the compensation and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No. 1 (driver) was not holding valid and effective D/L at the time of accident, therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot be saddled with liability? OPR3

4. Whether the accident caused due to the contributory negligence of the deceased while plying his motorcycle? OPR3.

5. Relief."

4. Accepting the claim petition, compensation of Rs. 6,54,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

5. While assessing the compensation, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Multiplier of 13 was applied. Deduction of 1/3rd was made. Adding compensation under the heads of loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, the total amount assessed was Rs. 6,54,000/-. It is the said award which has been impugned by filing the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue, as to whether the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license, is totally perverse. The driver had failed to put in appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte. The first owner of the vehicle, who had put in appearance, had merely stated that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No. 4 in the claim petition. The respondent No. 4 as well as the driver of the vehicle had failed to put in appearance. A photocopy of the driving license was produced on record by the claimants. The genuineness of the driving license, photocopy of which was placed on record, was verified from the office of Regional Transport Officer, Srinagar. Khurshid Ahmad Shah, Senior Assistant from the office of RTO Office, Srinagar, who appeared as a witness stated that DL No. 61730/K had been issued in favour of Bashir Ahmad son of Mohammad Abdullah R/o. Uri Baramulla and not the driver of the vehicle in question. The license was for LMV and Motorcycle and valid up to 26.04.1997.