JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This miscellaneous appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.08.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACT Case No. 31 of 2011 whereby and whereunder learned tribunal has been pleased to direct the insurance company (the appellant) to pay a compensation of Rs. 19,97,480/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application to the claimants-respondent no. 1 to 3.

Brief facts and submissions on behalf of the appellant.

3. Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. His first submission is that the learned tribunal has assessed a monthly income of Rs. 8190/- of the deceased by taking his daily earning at the rate of Rs. 273/-. Learned counsel submits that it is a case in which the deceased Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Swarnkar while driving a two wheeler was dashed by a tempo on 20.02.2011. He died in the said accident. At the time of his death he was aged about 33 years and the claimants who are the wife and minor children of the deceased claimed that the deceased was working as a skilled workman in a Jewellery Shop namely ‘Anil Jewellers’ and he was earning a sum of Rs.300-350/- per day. His submission is that to substantiate their claim as to his daily income, the claimants did not bring credible evidence and it would appear that apart from the family members and close relative of the deceased no independent witness came in support of the case of the claimants on the point of income. It is stated that the Jewellery Shop was owned by the co-brother of the deceased and he deposed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 300-350/- per day.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the tribunal could not appreciate that during the contemporary period in the year 2011 the notified rate of the minimum wages of skilled worker was only Rs. 151/-, therefore, even for the case shake if it is assumed that the deceased was a skilled worker, the tribunal had no reason to fix the monthly income of the deceased taking his daily earning at Rs. 273/-. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the compensation is excessive on this account.

5. It is further submitted that in this case it has come in evidence that the deceased was having a learners license, which had already expired. He was driving the vehicle in question without a valid driving license, therefore, on this ground alone the appellant can avoid its liability to pay the claim.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the tempo was not having a permit to ply the vehicle on the given route. Therefore, in absence of permit if the tempo was plying and in course of that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the accident took place which ultimately proved fatal for the life of the deceased, the owner of the offending tempo bearing Registration No. BR-43B-4793 would be liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that in any case if the tribunal had directed the insurance company to pay the claim amount despite no proof of their being a permit of the tempo, in view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517, the tribunal should have directed the owner to provide adequate security to the insurance company for the award amount before release of the said amount by the insurance company.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the tribunal has allowed future prospect @ 50% which is not in accordance with the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

8. His further submission is that tribunal had allowed excessiv