IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer must prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability, and the Tribunal's evaluation of compensation must reflect just and reasonable amounts for loss of dependency and other claims.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Pratheep Kumar, J.)

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 849/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellants in MACA 344/2016. The 2^nd respondent in the OP is the appellant in MACA 1839/2015. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The O.P. was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the wife, child and mother of deceased Manoj who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.12.2010. According to the petitioners, on 03.12.2010, at about 2.45 p.m., while the deceased was riding pillion on a motor cycle through Arakkunnam – Piravom public road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-40 B 4430 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment.

3. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are the registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4^th respondent and additional respondents 5 to 7 are the insurer and the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.10,00,000/-. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,26,585/- rounded to Rs.11,26,600/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.

4. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

5. Heard Sri.K.N.Abhilash and Sri.Domson J.Vattakkuzhy, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Sri.Sebastian Varghese, Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/5^th respondent in MACA 1839/2015 and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, Standing Counsel for 4^th respondent/6^th respondent in MACA 1839/2015.

6. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to them, the deceased was working as mason earning Rs.7500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-.

7. In this case the accident occurred on 3.12.2010. The validity of the driving licence of the 1^st respondent expired on 6.9.2010. Thereafter it was renewed only on 14.12.2010, 12 days after the accident. Therefore it can be seen that during the time of accident and also within the grace period of one month, the 1^st respondent did not have valid driving licence. He has renewed the licence almost three months after the expiry of its validity period. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297 , would argue that mere absence of valid driving licence on the date of accident alone is sufficient to exonerate the insurer either against the insured or the third party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying upon a five Judge Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Poulose , 2015 (1) KLT 682 (LB), would argue that if the driving licence is not renewed within the statutory period of 30 days, it cannot be stated that the driver was 'duly licenced' under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the M.V.Act.

8. In the decision in Swaran Singh (supra), after analyzing the provisions of the M.V.Act and the case law on the point, the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after interpreting Section 149(2)(a)(ii) viz-a-viz, the proviso to sub-sectin 4 and 5 of the M.V.Act summarised the findings in paragraph 102 as follows :

The summary of our findings to the