Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant judgments influenced the court's decision in modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar in Claim Case No. 38/2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs. 4,91,300/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Lal Chand in an accident occurred on 31.01.2012.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,91,300/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by the Tribunal by observing that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having any valid licence and permit to ply the vehicle.

4. Counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is erroneous in view of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 11 (S.C.) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the driver hold a licence to drive light motor vehicle, then he can also drive the transport vehicle of such class, while in the instant case, the weight of the vehicle is 1610 Kg.

5. Counsel submits that the necessity of permission is also not required in view of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra). He further submits that under Section 66(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') permit is not required. Counsel also submits that without considering these aspects, the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to make payment to the claimants-appellants. Counsel submits that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 45 years, but the Tribunal has committed an error while taking into consideration the multiplier of 13, while the multiplier of 14 should have been applied in the present case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

6. Counsel further submits that under the conventional head also a very petty amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded, while under the conventional head, the appellants-claimants are entitled to get a lump-sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. He, therefore, prays for re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also in the light of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra).

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of the driver submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, is not a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants with respect to the re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Mukund Dewangan (supra).

9. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant case, the Tribunal has wrongly given the 30% amount under the head of future prospects while it should be 25%, looking to the age of the deceased.

10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 and perused the other available material.

11. Admittedly, the vehicle in q