IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation first, despite the driver's invalid license, and established guidelines for calculating future prospects and multipliers in compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively arise out of same accident that took place on 07.04.2011, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In MAC No. 1173/2015, Respondent No. 6/owner of offending vehicle has also filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging the liability part.

3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 07.04.2011, deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-J-0334 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’) by non-applicant no. 1/driver of offending vehicle-Ashok Sharma. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 3.

4. On account of death of deceased- Dwarika Prasad Sahu, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was aged about 35 years & earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as labour (daily wager) and also used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as commission by working as agent in Satya Sai Prasad Private Limited. However, the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 85/2011 vide award dated 17.07.2015, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally while entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner and driver in case the compensation is firstly paid by the Insurance Company. Against the said award, Insurance Company and claimants are before this Court and filed these appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals submits that at the time of accident, non-applicant No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and for proving the said fact, Insurance Company has examined Rajiv Singh, Administrative Officer as NAW(3) and S.N. Pegu, Head Assistant, D.T.O. Betukuchi, Guwahati, Assam as NAW(3)-2, who have proved the fact that the driving licence bearing No. AS-01-436538/2005 was not issued in the name of driver of offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle has not examined himself before the Claims Tribunal for proving that he was having a valid and effective licence. Therefore, in these circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon Insurance Company/non-applicant no. 3 along with the non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. He further submits that the order of pay and recover passed by the learned claims Tribunal is also contrary to law. He also submits that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is also on higher side, which needs to be reduced suitably. Therefore, he urged that appeal filed by the Insurance Company may be allowed and Insurance Company may be absolved from its liability and order of pay and recover may also be quashed.

6. Though counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has filed cross-objection challenging the liability, but even after repeated calls there was no representation on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. However, by way of filing cross-objection, counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle prayed that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle as owner of the offending vehicle, after verifying the driving licence of non-applicant No. 1 & testing his skills of driving, hired him (non-applicant No. 1) as driver and also followed the mandatory conditions while hiring him. It was f