The court emphasized that the quantum of compensation cannot be challenged unless it is perverse in nature, and referenced legal provisions and case law to support its decision.

1. By virtue of this common order I am deciding three appeals i.e. two appeals filed by Insurance Company for setting aside the award and one has been filed by claimants- Pinki Khokhar and another, for enhancement of compensation.

2. In the memo of appeal (CIMA No.57/2010) appellant-Insurance Company has stated that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the M.A.C.T., Jammu for grant of compensation on account of the death of Shri Akash Gill who had died in a road traffic accident on 27.05.2005 at Sidhra Highway due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. JKS-9461. It is further stated that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were also impleaded as respondents in the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 before M.A.C.T., Jammu along with the appellant company being the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant company after its service filed objections to the claim petition by taking various defences available to it and denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimants in the case. One of the specific pleas raised by the appellant company in its objection was that the driver Satnam Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and therefore, the appellant company had no liability to pay any compensation. It is further stated that the respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle despite service did not chose to appear and contest the claim petition. Accordingly, the appellant company filed an appeal under Section 170 of M.V. Act seeking permission to defend the claim petition on the defences available to owner/driver as well and the said application was allowed by the Tribunal. Leanred M.A.C.T., Jammu vide its composite judgment dated 02.09.2009 rejected the defences raised by the appellant company and passed an award of Rs.11,92,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and against the appellant company with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the Appellant Company being aggrieved of the judgment/award impugned challenges its legality, validity and correctness on the following amongst other grounds:-

(a) That the judgment/award impugned is ex facie bad, contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point and the same therefore, deserves to be set aside.

(b) That as per the claim petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and according to the FIR, the offending vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the respondent No. 5 i.e. Satnam Singh. As per the photocopy of the license enclosed by the petitioners/respondents no. 1 to 3 along with their claim petition the driver Satnam Singh was holding a driving license no. 1276 issued by Licensing Authority Leh. The appellant company on the verification of the said license from Licensing Authority Leh came to know that the driver Satnam Singh was holding a fake driving license as the Licensing Authority Leh had not issued any such license in the name of Satnam Singh (driver). The certificate issued by the Licensing Authority was placed on the Court file where it was clearly stated that the license no. 1276 has not been issued in the name of Satnam Singh (driver) but in the name of one Mr. Toshi Narbo. On the basis of defence raised by the appellant company, an issue on the validity of the driving license was framed by the Tribunal below. In order to prove the said issue, the appellant Company filed its list of witnesses and also deposited their diet expenses. The appellant company by leading evidence proved that the driver Satnam Singh was holding a fake driving license. The Tribunal on the basis of evi