JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – insurance company (original opponent No.2), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.704 of 2001, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,72,250/- with 12% p.a. interest to the claimant, holding opponent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver-cum-owner and insurer liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 14.08.2001, the claimant was going on the Mangrol – Keshod road. When he reached near Jaysing Bhagat’s form, one motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-1-NN-8027, which was driven by opponent No.1 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with claimant, who was walking on the road and thereafter, the claimant had fallen down and dragged with the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries on the scull and also had haemorrhage and sustained other injuries like fracture. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. by doing work as Police Sub-Inspector in C.I.D. Department. Due to the haemorrhage, he has received permanent disability.

2.2 Thereafter, a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimant to get the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

2.3 The Tribunal has issued notices to the opponents though served. Opponent No.1 has not appeared. Opponent No.2 has appeared through its advocate and filed its written statement at Exh.14 by disputing all the averments made in the claim petition.

2.4 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.24 for its determination. Thereafter, the claimant has deposed at Exh.42, who was also cross-examined by insurance company. Thereafter, the Tribunal has recorded documentary evidence; like F.I.R. at Exh.26, Panchnama at Exh.27, report about accident at Exh.28, charge-sheet filed against opponent No.2 at Exh.29, injuries caused to claimant at Exh.30, pay-slip of claimant at Exh.33, disability certificate issued by Gokul Hospital, Rajkot at Exh.32, insurance policy at Exh.34 and driving licence at Exh.44, etc.

2.5 After considering the submissions and documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, as noted above.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the present appeal for enhancement in the awarded amount by the Tribunal.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the appellant – insurance company has submitted that the driver of motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Further, he has submitted that the date of licence is 22.10.2004 and the licence seems to be valid from 06.10.2001 to 05.10.2021 and he has submitted that the accident was occurred on 14.08.2001, therefore, admittedly the driving licence, which is produced on record by the claimant is valid for the subsequent period from the date of accident, therefore, it cannot be said that driver of the motorcycle was possessing any valid and effective driving licence. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of (i) Mahmad Rafik Munnebhai Ansari Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. rendered in First Appeal No.3173 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara & two Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.2180 of 2012 dated 18.01.2022 (iii) New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Arjanbhai Hansrajbhai Dawariya & two Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.3599 of 2013 dated 11.03.2022, in the above judgments this Court has taken view that insurance company cannot be held liable when there is no licence.

3.2 Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 15, which is as per his submission and since the claimant is a Government employee and he is not pr