IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act requires proof of a valid driving license, and the principle of 'pay and recover' applies when the license is not proven.

JUDGMENT :

(Marli Vankung, J.) :

Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment & Award dated 29.12.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 37/2016.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 25.07.15 at about 6.15 PM, the deceased Minaram Das, was proceeding on foot on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached Rupahimukh, all of a sudden a vehicle bearing no. AS-06/TC-32 B which was coming from Guwahati side in a high speed knocked him from his backside, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on 18.08.15 in the hospital. Sivasagar PS registered a case vide PS Case no. 699/15 u/s 279/338/304-A IPC regarding the accident.

4. The claimants who are the wife and the son of the deceased Minaram Das has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the MV Act. OP No. 3, driver of the offending vehicle, did not contest the case and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. However, OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 contested the case by filing written statements.

5. OP No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, in its written statement denied all the averments made by the claimant in the claim-petition and wanted strict proof thereof. It was further stated that all the vehicular documents were valid at the material time of the alleged accident. The vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co Ltd, and the driver had valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, the insurer is liable to indemnify them in the event of any award passed against them. OP No. 1, National Insurance Co Ltd, in its written statement denied the factual aspects of the case as narrated in the claim-petition and wanted strict proof. The insurer also declined to accept the liability if there was any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy or if the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed the following issued :-

1. Whether the victim, Minaram Das, died in the alleged road accident dated 25.07.15 involving vehicle no. AS-06/TC-32 B and whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable ?

7. During trial, the claimant no. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and also examined one eye-witness as PW-2 to prove the income of the deceased. She produced a number of documents in support of her claim. The contesting opposite parties have also examined one witness on their behalf. Both sides filed written argument.

8. The learned Tribunal decided both the issues in favour of the claimants and held that the claimant proved Ex-1 as Police Report; Ex-2 as PM Report; Ex-3(1 to 305) as-cash-memos amounting to Rs 4,65,336/-; & Ex-4 as certificate from Sanjivani Hospital.

9. The learned Tribunal held that the occupation and income of the deceased was not proved and held that the deceased used to earn Rs 6,000/- per month at the relevant time and annual income comes to Rs 72,000/-. Thus, taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.72,000/-, the annual loss of dependency after deducting one-third of the income, i.e. Rs 24,000/-, on account of personal expenses of the deceased, comes to Rs 48,000/-.

10. Regarding the age of the deceased according to the claimant no. 2, PW-1, the deceased was 54 years but the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence regarding age of the deceased. That Ex-2/PM Report, shows that age of the deceased has been mentioned as 55 years, so, the learned Tribunal held that it can be safely placed in the age