The main legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically in the case of an unlicensed driver involved in an accident.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act) is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat (Tribunal).

2. Briefly the facts of the case is that on 23.10.2011. deceased Bablu Gupta was driving motor vehicle bearing registration No. AS-05-D-6780 from Golaghat towards Jorhat alongwith his brother, Mahabir Gupta, who was a pillion rider. On reaching Panichokuwa, under Pulibor Police Station, district-Jorhat, one offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-03-9985 (407 Truck) going from the opposite direction dashed against the motor cyclist, thereby, the driver of the motor cycle, Bablu Gupta died out of the injuries and the pillion rider, brother of the deceased, Mahabir sustained injuries. The claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of the M.V. Act was filed by the mother Smti. Puspa Devi claiming that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing wholesale business in pan and supari. Alongwith the claim petition, the claimant filed an FIR exhibited as Exhibit-2 and charge-sheet was exhibited as Exhibit- 6. The claimant examined herself as CW-1 and the injured Mahabir was examined as CW-2. The charge-sheet suggests that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration No. AS-03-9985. During the course of enquiry, the learned Tribunal framed 3 (three) issues :-

(1) whether the accident took place on 23.10.2011 at Panichokuwa under Pulibor Police Station and whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. AS-03-9985 (407 Truck). Whether the victim Bablu Gupta sustained serious injuries and died on the spot;

(2) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so what is the quantum and from whom;

(3) any other relief?

3. The learned Tribunal found that the factum of the accident was established as per the FIR and charge-sheet and also the fact that the deceased, Bablu Gupta sustained injuries and died out of the accident was proved. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal on examination of documents found that the National Insurance Company Limited who were impleaded as opposite party No. 3 were the insurer of the offending truck. The above being the facts of the case, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased victim died out of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck who was insured with the National Insurance Company and the claimants were entitled to compensation under such circumstances. The learned Tribunal, on examining the claim petition awarded an amount of Rs. 15,15,754,/- to the claimants, Rs. 20,000/- was considered as per the salary of the deceased and on deduction of the income tax, Rs. 14,012/-was assessed as his monthly income. The deceased being a bachelor, 15% of the income was deducted for his personal expenses and his annual income after deduction of the tax was put at Rs. 1,67,306/-. His monthly contribution to the family was taken as Rs. 83,683/-. The age of the deceased was taken as 24 years 15 days as proven by the Pan Card submitted by the claimants, hence, in consonance with the multiplier laid out in the Sarla Vermas case, 18 was considered as the multiplier. Funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of dead body of the deceased was added to the amount of Rs. 15,05,574/- which is the amount considered as the amount of contribution to the family.

Aggrieved with the decision of the learned Tribunal, the National Insurance Company Limited, who appears as opposite party No. 3 are in appeal against this impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2015.

The grounds initially taken by the appellants is that:-

(1) multiplier is misconceived;

(2) there is admitted statement in the cross-examination of CW-1 that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant point of time when the accident