The court's decision was influenced by the application of Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining the validity of the driver's license and the consequent compensation for the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Appeals are filed by the claimants before the Tribunal as also owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The owner of the vehicle has filed an appeal against the finding of the Tribunal that the driver had no license at the time of accident. Both the appeals were heard together.

2. There are many factors arising in the owner's appeal, which would require appropriate evidence to be adduced. In such circumstances, there has to be a remand in the said matter is the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the owner. However, before considering the said matter, the appeal of the claimants can be considered, since it is for enhancement. It is trite that if the Insurance Company claims to be absolved from the indemnification, on the basis of there being no valid license, then under Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the company will have to satisfy the award but effect recovery from the owner.

3. The claimants are the wife and two children of the deceased-injured. The Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of the evidence adduced. However, claimants contend that they should be granted enhancement. First contention is with respect to the age of the deceased. It is submitted that the age of the deceased was asserted to be 40 in the claim petition itself. The Tribunal had taken the age above 45 and applied the consequential multiplier of 13. It is the contention of the claimants that without any contra evidence the multiplier applied should have been 14, taking the age as between 40 and 45. There is another contention raised that the claimant had produced a salary certificate dated 10.12.2008 indicating that the deceased was working as a mechanic in one Sree Krishna Auto Garage and that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 7,500/-. The Tribunal adopted a monthly salary of only Rs. 4,000/-. The future prospectus was also not taken into consideration. There is also a claim raised for compensation for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of estate to all the claimants.

4. Considering the age of the deceased, it has to be stated that there was absolutely no evidence placed before the Tribunal but for the assertion made that the deceased was 40 years old. However, it is evident from the award of the Tribunal that the first son of the petitioner was aged 20 and his wife is aged 40. Hence, it is highly improbable that the deceased was aged 40. If it is so taken then it would indicate that he had entered into a marriage when he was not competent so to do. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the approximate age as taken by the Tribunal, being between 45 and 50 and the multiplier as also future prospectus would have to be applied on that count.

5. With respect to the salary of the deceased again but for production of a salary certificate in the letter pad of the workshop, none was examined to prove it. The proprietor could have been called to the box to prove the said document, which was not done. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the salary certificate. However, it is to be noticed that the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 had in the year 2004, adopted the notional income of a 'coolie' at Rs. 4,500/-. The instant accident occurred in the year 2008 and since there is no specific contravention of the claim that the deceased was a mechanic, the notional income is fixed at Rs. 6,500/- per month. The multiplier to be applied is 13 and the future prospectus would be 25%. The annual income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency has to be: 6,500+1625 (25% of 6,500). The loss of dependency, hence, would be Rs. 8,125 * 12 *13 *2/3= Rs. 8,45,000/-. Further enhancement is under the head loss of consortium and loss of estate, which has to be Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (5) KHC 350. Hence