IMPORTANT POINTS
Deciding a claim in motor accident case requires considering various factors.
In case the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the insurance company will be absolved of the liability but on the principle of 'pay and recover' can be directed to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT

Indu Malhotra, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the claimant to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 passed in FAO No. 10473 of 2014 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed, briefly stated, are as follows:

2.1. On 29.03.2009, the Appellant - driver, was driving a Hyundai Elantra car in which Captain Kanwaljit Singh, a Cabinet Minister in Punjab, was being driven from Ludhiana.

2.2. At about 5:15 p.m., when the car reached near Village Khanpur, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55-B-9491 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which came from the opposite direction at a very high speed, and rammed into the car. The accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of another truck bearing Registration No. HR-58-A-9791, which was wrongly parked on the road.

2.3. As a result of the accident, Captain Kanwaljit Singh and the Appellant - driver sustained grievous injuries. Captain Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant - driver survived, but became permanently disabled.

2.4. The Appellant suffered from grievous injuries, including a head injury with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and had to undergo a hemi-craniotomy i.e. removal of front bone of the skull. He further suffered fracture of both jaw bones, and disfiguration of his face. Due to the severe head injury, his left arm and leg were not functioning properly. The Appellant had to undergo 5 surgeries for which he required successive hospitalizations. He had to visit PGI, Chandigarh on various dates for follow-up treatment as an outdoor patient.

2.5. The Appellant was assessed by a Medical Board on 08.09.2010, and on examination it was found to be an operated case with hemiplegia i.e. weakness of one half of the body on the left side. The doctor opined that the Appellant shall not be able to work as a labourer, or do agricultural work, or work as a driver. His disability was assessed at 75%, which was permanent in nature.

2.6. The Appellant filed a Claim Petition before the MACT, Panchkula against the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two offending trucks viz. the Respondent - Insurance Company.

The Appellant contended that he was earning an income of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as a driver prior to the accident.

2.7. The Respondent - Insurance Company pleaded that the drivers of the two offending vehicles were driving the trucks without valid driving licenses. The Insurance Company produced a Licensing Clerk from the RTO Office at Mathura, U.P. who deposed that the driving licenses had not been issued in the name of the drivers by their office. The licenses had been issued in the name of some other persons.

2.8. The MACT, Panchkula vide Award dated 25.01.2013, allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,43,666/- to the Appellant.

The MACT proceeded on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m., which worked out to Rs. 72,000/- per annum, on the ground that the Appellant did not produce any evidence, nor examine any witness to prove his income.

The loss of income due to functional disability was assessed at 75% which came to about Rs. 54,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the Appellant, the compensation on account of loss of future earnings worked out to Rs. 9,72,000/-. The Appellant was awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,43,666/- along with Interest @7.5% p.a. for the injuries suffered by him.

On the question of liability to pay compensation, the drivers of both the offending trucks were found not to be holding valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. As a result, the MACT held the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Appellant. The Insurance Company was absolved of the liab