An insurance company is liable to compensate third parties even if the driver had a fake license, unless it proves that the owner knowingly employed an unlicensed driver.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. MFA.No.8389/2017 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2017 passed by the VIII Additional SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (for short, the Tribunal) in MVC.No.7055/2016 on the grounds of liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, MFA.CROB.No.150/2021 is filed by the claimants/cross objectors for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.09.2016 at around 2.30 am, Saleem Pasha (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') and his friends were proceeding towards Murugamalla Dargha, near Chinthamani from Bengaluru in Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-2605, when the said car reached near Gollapalligadda Village, Chinthamani-Murugamalla road, the driver of the above said Car driven the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in a curve and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the side tree and the car toppled and fell on the road, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Hence, the dependants/claimants had filed claim petition before the Tribunal, same was allowed-in-part. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company and claimants have filed these appeals.

5. Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company, whereas the driver of the car was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the owner of the car.

6. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering Ex.P.13- Driver details, same was fabricated document and produced only for the purpose of this case to get more compensation and the same is not in accordance with law.

7. Further, the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation under conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded a high and exorbitant interest at the rate of 9% and the same has to be reduced to 6% per annum. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also contended that the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on lower side. The deceased, prior to this accident, was working as an auto driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In fact, the accident is of the year 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month.

9. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased as there are three dependants. Thus, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the claimants, the following points that would arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the appellant - Insurance Company has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence and Ex.P-13- Driving Licence of the dec