IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability based on the genuineness of the driving license and the assessment of compensation for personal injuries in accordance with the guiding factors provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has challenged judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.359/2011. The appellant had claimed compensation for serious injuries/permanent disablement sustained by him.

2. Challenge is on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated respondent no.3 Insurer of offending vehicle from liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence. Further challenge is on the ground that meager amount has been awarded, which should be enhanced.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as respondent no.3-Insurance Company.

4. Brief facts of this case are that on 17.12.2010 appellant was driving motor-cycle bearing Regn.No.RJ27/SD-2446. One Dinesh Meena was a pillion. At 4:30 pm a loading Tempo bearing Regn. No.RJ27/GA-7847, being driven by respondent no.1, rashly and negligently caused accident to the motor-cycle riders, wherein the appellant sustained fracture on the right thigh and had to undergo continuous treatment of four months. Respondent no.2 was owner of the said vehicle. The owner and driver did not contest claim case nor produce any evidence. In the aforesaid circumstance, the injured had all the defences available to the owner and driver but the Insurer also did not substantiate the defence raised in the written statement that the driver was not holding any effective and valid driving licence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Exhibit-11 is driving licence of driver of offending vehicle, which was issued on 10.11.2010 in favour of respondent no.1. The licence further reveals that it was for driving light motor-vehicle and light load vehicle. The genuineness of driving licence is not disputed herein. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “Light Motor Vehicle” as a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 Kilograms.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the prayer and submits that the finding of the Tribunal is consistent with the material available on record, however, does not dispute about the genuineness of the driving licence produced in the case nor the application of law in the matter of calculation of compensation for the injuries.

7. There is evidence that the offending vehicle was a light loading Tempo (three-wheeler). No contrary evidence has been brought on record that the said vehicle was a heavy motor-vehicle as defined under Section 2(16) or 2(17) of the Act, therefore, the only evidence on record was/is that the driver had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor-vehicle and the offending vehicle was within the category of “Light Motor Vehicle”, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error of record in holding that since the driver had no valid driving licence, there was violation of terms of policy of insurance, hence, the Insurer is not liable. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal is set aside and respondent no.3 is held liable to pay the compensation.

8. Another point of consideration is whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the material available on the records. It is case of the appellant that at the time of sustaining serious injuries, he was aged about 22 years and was a labour earning Rs.4,500/- per month. No contrary evidence was on the record, hence, the Tribunal accepted the aforesaid income of the appellant and calculated the yearly income as Rs.54,000/-. Thereafter the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and the amount came after multiplication as Rs.9,18,000/-. 15% of the same i.e. Rs.1,37,700/- was awarded for permanent disablement. Besides the aforesaid, the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,500/- based on the vouchers as medical expenses and Rs.13,500/- as loss of three month’s income during treatment. Rs.12,000/- was allowed by the Tribunal jointly for diet, helper an