JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

Being aggrieved with the award dated 13.06.2017 passed by the District Judge-XIV-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V) Suit No. 61 of 2014, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 31.01.2014, while Bhairav Lal Mahto (deceased) was returning home after performing his duty from Sendra Bansjora Colliery on his Moped bearing registration No. JH-10 AG-6371 and reached near Shakti Chowk at 3.30 p.m, a Hywa bearing registration No. JH-10 AG1285, being driven rashly and negligently and coming from Rajganj Side dashed the said Bhairav Lal Mahto, which caused serious injuries to him. Thereafter, said Bhairav Lal Mahto was taken to Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, where he succumbed to his injuries.

3. The said Bhairav Lal Mahto was an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited working as Coal Dresser at Sendra Bansjora Colliery, Dhanbad with a monthly salary of Rs. 39,140.74 at that time. At the time of death, he was only 44 years old and left behind his widow wife, one son and two daughters, who were the original plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein) and who had filed the suit being Title (M.V) Suit No. 61 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,52,199.96 with interest @ 9 % per annum from pendente lite and future cost from the defendants-owner and insurer of the said vehicle (Hywa) invoking provisions of Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’).

4. Before the Tribunal, the defendants, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, appeared and filed their separate written statements.

5. The owner of the Hywa admitting his ownership of Hywa bearing registration No. JH-10 AG-1285 submitted that vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (herein after referred to as ‘appellant-insurance company’) having validity from 30.09.2013 to 29.09.2014 thereby covering the date of occurrence i.e. 31.01.2014, hence liability to indemnify lies upon the said insurer. The owner of the said vehicle further submitted that driver of the said vehicle, Santosh Sao was possessing a valid driving license. He further submitted that the vehicle in question complied with all the terms and conditions of the policy under the Insurance Act.

6. The appellant-insurance company, in its written statement, has admitted that the said vehicle, TATA Tipper No. JH-10 AG1285 at the time of accident was insured with it. However, it was pointed out that the claim case is bad on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owner and insurer of the Moped No. JH-10 AG-6371, upon which the deceased was traveling, has not been made party in the claim case. The appellant-insurance company further submitted that the driver of the Hywa was not holding the valid driving license at the time of accident and further disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased and submitted that claim, sought for, by the claimants is exorbitant.

7. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, examined the necessary documents brought on record by the parties and evidence adduced by them, and assessed the total compensation to be paid in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs. 52,34,893/-and directed the appellant-insurance company to pay the same along with interest @ 6 % per annum till its payment.

8. Here, it would be pertinent to note that the Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos. IV and V together (Issue No. IV – Whether the driver of the offending truck had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?; Issue No. V – Whether the offending vehicle had a valid permit at the time of accident?), which are the core issues before this Court, came to a finding that the driver of the said vehicle was possessing L.M.V Licence