The court emphasized the importance of valid driving licenses for commercial vehicles and applied relevant legal provisions and case law to determine liability and modify compensation.

R. SUDHAKAR, J.

1. It is an appeal by the Insurance Company. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 20.09.2011 at 4.30 pm at Arkhil near Nagrota Jammu. Ghulam Rasool aged 48 years, a labourer by profession was travelling on a motor cycle along with Khadim Hussain, when the said vehicle was hit by a Mahindra Maxi Cab, insured with the appellant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not stated the facts correctly. It failed to identify the nature of the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling. The entire award proceeds on the basis that the offending vehicle is a scooter. On the contrary, after verifying the records, it is fairly stated by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company is a Mahindra Pick Up van. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there is a mistake apparent on the face of record.

2. Be that as it may, on the death of Ghulam Rasool his wife aged 45 years and son aged 25 years are the claimants.

3. Oral and documentary evidence were let in. On the finding of the negligence on the part of driver of Mahindra Miscellaneous Pick Up van which caused the accident and the death of Ghulam Rasool, there is no serious dispute by the appellant-Insurance Company as it is based on the appreciation of oral evidence and more particularly the eye witness.

4. The Insurance Company pleads that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license to drive a commercial vehicle whereas the license that he was holding was valid only for driving light motor vehicles. Therefore, the Insurance Company denied its liability to compensate the claimants stating that there was violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy.

5. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month as against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- per month. This comes to Rs. 60,000/- per annum. The Tribunal fixed the annual loss of dependence at Rs. 40,000/- after making a deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. It adopted 11 multiplier and an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- (40,000 x 11) was granted for loss of dependency. In this case it appears that deceased was admitted in PGI Chandigarh for about 3 weeks before he died and, therefore, compensation has been granted for medical expenses also. The award of the Tribunal is as follows:

Loss of Dependency	Rs.4,40,00/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs.25,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Consortium	Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.2,74,000/-
Total	Rs.8,49,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum and default interest of 8% per annum.

6. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company pleads for reduction of the quantum of compensation stating that wrong multiplier is applied and also 8% default interest is erroneous.

7. Heard counsel for the parties.

8. Insofar as first issue relating to the invalid driving license is concerned, the appellant has enclosed the copy of the driving license as Annex-ure-3 to the memo of appeal which clearly shows that it is endorsed for LMV only. Admittedly at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a commercial vehicle. Reliance is placed on the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. In terms of the aforesaid judgments, the appellant-Insurance company has to first settle the claimants and will have a right to recover the same from the owner as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same applies to the facts of the present case on undisputed facts as above.

9. Insofar as quantum is concerned, admittedly, the driving license shows the date of birth of deceased as 17.05.1952. The Tribunal has taken age as 4