Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award dated 29.10.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut in M.A.C.P. No. 885 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,35,200/- together with interest @ 6% in favour of the claimant-respondent, arising from the accidental death of Ram Chandra.

2. Upon interim order passed by this Court, the entire amount of compensation determined at Rs. 4,35,200/- has been deposited before the Tribunal and would have been paid out to the claimant. At present, it is only the interest which is lying deposited with the Tribunal under the aforesaid interim order.

3. In the claim petition, the claimant disclosed, Ram Chandra met with an accident on 19.1.1996 when his cycle was hit by a Tata LCV bearing registration No. UP 15 D - 9439, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by it’s driver, on the wrong side of the road. The accident took place at about 8:00 a.m. near the saw mill at village Sisoli.

4. It was also claimed, at the time of the accident, the deceased Ram Chandra was working as a fourth class employee in the Information Department and was earning about Rs. 3,500/- per month. The owner did not appear in the claim proceedings and, therefore, the insurer-appellant filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to be impleaded and to contest the claim on all grounds. It was allowed.

5. The Tribunal framed four issues namely, whether the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the offending Tata LCV vehicle; whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation; whether the claim suffered from non-joinder of parties and; whether the driver of the Tata LCV vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence.

6. The Tribunal dealt with the aforesaid four issues. On issue No. 4, the Tribunal found that neither the owner of the offending vehicle had appeared before it nor had any evidence been led by the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, in view of the application filed under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being allowed, the Tribunal held the burden was on the insurer to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided the issue against the insurer.

7. Then, on the issue of quantification of compensation, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased had been established by the claimant by filing the salary slip disclosing his income at Rs. 3,075/- per month. The said document was duly proved before the Tribunal by the wife of the deceased.

8. Thereafter, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and awarded compensation Rs. 4,18,200/- towards loss of dependency; Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and; Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation amount was determined at Rs. 4,25,200/-.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in shifting the burden on the insurer to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence. He also submits that the income of the deceased had not been established inasmuch as the employer of the deceased was not examined. Further, he submits, the claim was wholly belated as it was made almost two years after the occurrence of the accident and that the FIR lodged at the time of the accident did not disclose the registration number of the vehicle and therefore, it’s involvement in the accident was doubtful.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the insurer filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that was allowed by the Tribunal. In his submission, upon such application being allowed, the insurer stepped into shoes of the owner and therefore, the burden to es