JUDGMENT :

1. Though this appeal is listed for orders, as records are received from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the exoneration of the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.391/2013 in terms of the Judgment and Award dated 03.06.2014.

3. Appellants herein will henceforth be referred to as ‘claimants’. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ and ‘owner’ respectively of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.

4. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the legal representatives of Mr.Ayyoob P.T. who was 26 years old and was employed as a Logistics Assistant Manager at Asthetics Audio and Video Private Limited, Bengaluru. It is claimed that on 16.06.2012 at about 5:45 p.m., the said Mr. Ayyoob P.T was trying to cross the outer ring road near Babusapalya junction and was standing on the center median. At that time, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-B-7305 (henceforth referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) which was driven rash and negligently dashed against the said Mr.Ayyoob P.T., who sustained serious injuries and died on the way to Bowring hospital, Bengaluru. The claimants contended that they had lost emotional and financial support of the deceased. They alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and responsible for the accident and that case in Crime No.53/2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against him. The claimants, therefore, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. The insurer contested the claim petition and contended that the driver did not possess a valid licence and that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

6. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and an employee of Aesthetix Technologies India (P) Limited was examined as PW.2 and they marked documents Exs.P1 to P22. The administrative officer of the insurer and ARTO, Indiranagar, were examined as RWs.1 and 2 respectively and they marked documents Exs.R1 to R11.

7. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW.1 and the complaint lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle and the consequent spot mahazar, spot sketch and IMV report (Exs.P3 to P5) and the charge sheet (Ex.P6) filed by the jurisdictional Police in the discharge of their official duty, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident.

8. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased at 26 years and his income at a sum of Rs.17,000/-per month and factored 50% as the loss of future prospects and awarded the following compensation:

9. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, based on Ex.R11, extract of driving licence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle though possessed a licence to drive a hazardous goods vehicle, which was in force from 17.02.2009 to 16.02.2010, it was not renewed. The Tribunal relied upon section sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which indicates that a driving licence issued or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle would be in force for a period of three years and in respect of a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods would be effective for a period of one year and the renewal thereof is subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus. Since the driver of the offending vehicle di