The court discussed the power of the Tribunal to grant more compensation than claimed and cited relevant case laws to support its decision.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 11th February, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 14-NL/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Shinder Kaur and others versus Kamal Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,70,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”).

2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the amount awarded is excessive.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurer argued that the rate of interest and the amount awarded under all the heads is not in accordance with the law, rather is a bounty, be set aside and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy read with the mandate of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that though the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement, but the amount awarded is meagre, rather inadequate and the Tribunal has also not applied the multiplier as per the law applicable.

6. In order to determine all these issues, it is necessary to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the case in hand:

7. The claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the grounds taken in the claim petition.

8. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

9. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether the death of Sat Pal was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2 of the offending vehicle, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof? OPP

3. Whether the respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation if awarded and that is to be indemnified by the respondent No. 3? OPR-3

4. Whether the vehicle at the time of the accident was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so the effect thereof? OPR-3

5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. If so the effect thereof? OPR-3

6. Relief.”

10. The claimants examined Dr. Puneet Sharma as PW1, Shri Hardev Kumar as PW3, Shri Krishan Dayal as PW4, HC Mansa Ram as PW5 and one of the claimants, Smt. Shinder Kaur herself appeared in the witness box as PW2 in support of their claim. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not examined any witness. The appellant-insurer examined Shri Kuldeep Singh, Clerk, DTO Hoshiarpur as RW1.

Issue No. 1:

11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that respondent No. 2-driver, namely Gurdev Singh, has driven the Tempo, bearing registration No. HP-640-143, rashly and negligently on 15th October, 2007 near Agro Factory, Rajpura and caused the accident in which deceased-Sat Pal sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

12. The said issue is not in dispute. However, I have gone