The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of recovery rights to the insurer against the owner and the direction to release the balance of deposits to the claimants in accordance with the modified awards.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. These twenty six appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered on 27.11.2006 by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) whereby twelve accident claim petitions, each preferred under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) were adjudicated upon. The claim petitions sought compensation on account of death or injuries suffered by various persons in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred at about 0245 hours on 26.01.1993 in the area of junction of Rohtak Road and Ring road which is popularly known as Peeragarhi crossing, it involving collision between two motor vehicles, one described as Matador bearing registration no.PB-08F-4581 (the matador) and the other Tata-407 bearing registration no.PB-08E-1958 (hereinafter referred to variously as Tata-407 or the offending vehicle). The matador was driven by Kulvir Singh and was carrying a number of persons including Major Singh Bagry, Nirmal Singh, Harvinder @ Harjinder Kaur, Trilochan Singh Bagry, Balbir Singh, Mewa Singh, Bakshish Kaur, Baljinder Singh and a child named Master Gurjit Singh, besides one Mangat Ram. While Mangat Ram and one Baljinder Singh survived with some injuries, all others including Kulvir Singh, the matador driver, perished in the consequence. It may be added here that though the claim case of Mangat Ram was also decided simultaneously by the tribunal, the award in the said case has not been challenged by any appeal by any side.

2. It is admitted case on all sides that both the motor vehicles, namely, Matador and Tata-407 (the offending vehicle) were insured against third party risk at the relevant point of time with National Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer). Though the tribunal eventually concluded by judgment dated 27.11.2006, that there was contributory negligence on the part of drivers on both sides, given the fact that the two vehicles involved are covered by third party risk insurance policy issued by the same insurer, apportionment of the liability amongst the two sets of drivers (owners/insurers) is not of much consequence as the liability has eventually fallen on the same insurance company (National Insurance Company Ltd.).

3. It was proved during inquiry before the tribunal that the offending vehicle (Tata-407) is registered in the name of The Hind Samachar Ltd. (owner) and was driven at the relevant of time by Malkiat Singh (driver), a person engaged by the registered owner of the vehicle for such purposes. During the inquiry, the insurer had taken the plea that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy for the reason the driver was not holding a valid or effective driving license. This contention was considered by the tribunal but rejected. Though the insurance company led evidence to prove that the driving license on which the driver and owner would rely was a fake document and the owner and driver on the other hand relied on evidence adduced to show facts to contrary, the tribunal eventually rejected the plea of the insurer for exoneration on the reasoning that the insurer had failed to come up with positive evidence showing the fact that driver was holding a fake driving license was within the knowledge of the owner.

4. The facts concerning the ten claim cases with which these appeals are concerned, may be taken note of, briefly, at this stage.

5. Kulvir Singh, the driver of the Matador was aged 24 years, a bachelor, compensation having been claimed by his parents, aged 60 and 70 years at the relevant point of time, the case having been registered as MACT case no.164/2006. The father of Kulvir Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and, thus, the claim is being prosecuted by the surviving claimant (the mother) only. The tribunal concluded that the deceased Kulvir Singh was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and deducted one third of the income towards personal and living expenses and on that basis calculated the loss of dependency (by applying multiplier of