The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid driving license, the insurer's burden to prove willful breach, and the assessment of compensation for various components including pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 3.7.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MACT No. 44-S/2 of 2008, titled Shri Rajinder Singh versus Kripal Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.9,14,400/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insured-owner was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

2. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award thus; I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.

3. Owner Kripal Singh, by the medium of FAO No. 423 of 2012 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with the liability and claimant Rajinder Singh, by the medium of FAO No. 400 of 2012, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, on the grounds taken in their memo of appeals.

4. Claimant being the victim of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on account of the injuries with permanent disability suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 19.6.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of driver, namely Sat Pal, while driving vehicle No. HP-36-A-0218. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed.

1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-36-A-0218 by the respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action? OPP.

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3.

6. Whether the vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and route permit etc. If so, its effect? OPR-3.

7. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger? OPR-3.

8. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his act and conduct? OPR-3.

9. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? OPR-3.

10. Relief.

5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence oral as well as documentary, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the driver and owner. Driver has not questioned the said findings, are accordingly upheld.

6. The only dispute in these appeals is with respect to issues No. 5 and 6 and partly on issue No. 2.

Issue No.5.

7. The Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned award has held that the insurer has proved that the licence Ex.RW1/A was not in the name of respondent No. 2 but renewal was in his name and accordingly, held that respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner has committed willful breach. It is apt to reproduce para 15 of the impugned award herein.

“15. In this case, the insurance company has successfully proved that no licence Ext. RW1/A with original number from RLA Dehradun has been issued in the name of respondent No.2. The insurance company through its investigator also inquired about the insurance of the licence and it was found that the licence though validly renewed, but the original licence never exists in the name of respondent No.2 The Tribunal is also satisfied that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, issue No. 5 is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and against respondent No. 1 and 2.” [emphasis added]

8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are factually incorrect for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.