JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 195/2013.

2. Brief facts of the case is that on 20.01.2007 in between 1:30 to 2:00 PM, the husband of the appellant No. 1 was travelling in the Auto driven by respondent No.1 and near the village Lariya Motor stand, Hardi Bazar, Kusmunda Distt. Korba. When the vehicle reached in the village Kusmunda, respondent No. 1 who was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. CG 12 E/ 5349 rashly and negligently on account of which the deceased Manoj who was seated on the back side was hit by the iron pipe and sustained injury and died on the spot. Respondent No.1 left the deceased nearby and ran away. Thereafter the police registered Crime No. 115/07 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 201 IPC against the appellant.

3. Respondent No.1 & 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal and did not filed their written statement. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has stated that the vehicle was a passenger vehicle and it comes under the light motor vehicle and he has admitted that the driver was not holding valid and effective license. He has also admitted that after 20.01.2007, he has never renewed the permit and thus has not been able to prove the validity of the driving license.

4. The Respondent No. 3/ United Insurance Company Ltd. filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application and submitted that the deceased fall down and met to an accident on his own negligence. There is breach of Policy as the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license and it is also stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as per terms and conditions of the Policy and sought for dismissal of claim petition.

5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues and after assessment of evidence and material placed before it decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded Rs. 6,73,500/- as compensation.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that it is a case where the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident thus there is fundamental breach of policy condition. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal is bad for the reason that it had not properly deducted the personal expenses and as such the amount of compensation should be enhanced.

7. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that learned tribunal has erred in analyzing the evidence put on records and ought to have seen that the appellant has submitted salary certificate (Ex.P-7) of the deceased in which monthly salary has been shown Rs. 9533/- after deduction. The salary has to be calculated without deduction. Therefore the amount of compensation is in lower side and may be enhanced suitably. He further argued that learned tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of compensation of the amount as the appellant No.1 has given compassionate appointment which is illegal as the law does not permit to deduct 50% because the claimant has been given employment, the compensation has been awarded to the appellants should be enhanced and the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on the lower side therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments-National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shabana Khan and another (MAC No. 322/2015) passed by this court on 21.09.2022, Shamanna and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Others {(2018) 9 SCC 650, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satindar Kaur {(2021) 11 SCC 650} and Smt. Anjali & Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1012.

8. Learned Counsel for the appell