Insurer is liable for compensation even with a fake driving licence, with a right to recover from the vehicle owner's estate post-payment. Future earning potential must be included in compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT :

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

1. The insurer has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (“the Act”) being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 13/10/2006, in Application No.2935 of 1996 (“claim”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (“Tribunal”) thereby the said claim was partly allowed with proportionate costs and the Appellant and Respondent No.6 were held jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,66,000/- to Respondent Nos.1 to 5, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from 01/02/1999 till realization of said amount. The Appeal has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal did not pass the pay and recover order in favour of the Appellant.

2. As per the record, Appeal was admitted on 17/01/2007. Thereafter, the notice of the Appeal was sent to Respondent No.6. The notice returned alongwith the Report of the bailiff stating that Respondent No.6 has expired on 26/06/2006, i.e., during pendency of the claim. Hence, the learned Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court passed an Order on 20/08/2014 that, the Appeal abated against Respondent No.6. As noted in this Court’s Order dated 08/01/2025, Mr. Misar, the learned Advocate for the Appellant sought time to take steps against Respondent No.6. However, no steps have been taken. That apart, Mr. Misar, stated that the Appellant is not willing to take the steps in respect of the deceased Respondent No.6. The Appeal is more than 15 years old.

3. Hence, heard Mr. Misar, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Mendon, the learned Advocate for the Claimants and Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Amicus Curiae. Perused the record.

4. The Claimants are the legal representatives of late Deepak @ Dilip Govind Kachare (“Deceased”). It was the case of the Claimants that, on 25/06/1996, at about 7:00 PM, the deceased was pillion on a Motorcycle bearing No. MHQ-594 (“M/cycle”) and proceeding from Indapur towards Teguni, by the Pune-Solapur highway. Mr. Avinash Khashale, friend of the deceased was riding the M/cycle. When the M/cycle reached near KM No.139/4 on the said road, a motor truck bearing No.MH-12/R-9191 (“Truck”) came from Indapur towards Teguni and dashed the M/cycle on its rear side. As a result, the claimant and his friend both sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It was averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. On information, initially, Indapur Police Station registered the Accident No.113/1996. Later on, PSI - Mr. N. S. Jagtap filed the Report (Exh.14) which was registered as F.I.R. No.83/1996 against the driver of the truck namely Mr. Ramdas Sandipan Patole, under Sections 279 , 304A and 427 of I.P.C. read with Sections 183 and 184 of the Act.

4.1. It was averred that, the deceased was aged 30 years, he was serving for Mr. Kundalik Kisan Bandgar and getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,200/-. The Claimants were dependent on the deceased. Therefore, they filed the said claim seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from Respondent No.6/Original Opposite party and the Appellant, who were the owner and insurer of the truck.

5. Despite the notice, Respondent No.6 did not file his appearance and let the claim proceeded against in his absence.

6. Therefore, Appellant filed an