The court ruled that just compensation must reflect the actual loss and potential earnings of the deceased, regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Both these appeals (i.e., instant Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection No.03 of 2018) arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation passed in M.A.C.C. No. 59/2011, whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the death of Ramlakhan Oraon caused in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The claim case was filed by the dependents of the deceased, impleading the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle as party(s). Since the owner (respondent no. 1) and driver (respondent no. 2) did not appear, therefore an ex-parte proceeding was drawn and the case was disposed of.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company in M.A. No. 257 of 2013 that despite the processes being issued, neither the owner nor the driver appeared either at the stage of inquiry or in appeal to bring on record relevant documents like permit. It is the consistent case of the Insurance Company that offending goods vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04JA-5395 was not having a valid permit at the time of accident. Reliance is placed on Ext. A which is a verification report and Ext. B which is a certificate issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, Chhatisgarh on 24.06.2011.

4. As per the report of the Transport Authority, the documents purported to be permit of the offending vehicle was not issued on 03.02.2009 by authorization no. 8214/2008.

5. It is further argued that despite the permit having not been proved, learned Tribunal fixed the liability on the Insurance Company by relying on (2010) 2 ACC 441 which will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case relied upon was regarding the question of third party liability of the Insurance Company, where the vehicle was comprehensively insured to cover the passenger(s)’ risk, and it did not involve the question of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for not having a valid permit.

6. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the primary onus to lead evidence regarding validity of permit was upon the owner of the vehicle, and having failed to appear and adduce any evidence in this regard goes to show that the vehicle was not having a valid permit for plying the commercial vehicle. Further, evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company that the documents which were said to be permit of the vehicle were not issued by the Transport Authority. Plying of vehicle without a valid permit, was a fundamental infraction of the policy of insurance, and the insurance company was not obligated to indemnify the owner of vehicle. (See Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2018) 7 SCC 558 ).

Cross Objection No.03 of 2018.

7. The claimant(s) have preferred Cross Objection for enhancement of the Award of compensation in M.A.C.C. No.59 of 2011.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that learned Tribunal has recorded a definite finding on the basis of computation of compensation that the deceased was an ex-serviceman and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and suffered accidental death at the age of 27 years, leaving behind four legal heirs and dependents who are the claimants in the present case. It further computed the final computation of compensation has been made to a sum of Rs.34,72,600/-. However, an award of compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs has only been made since the claimants’ case was filed only for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs.

9. Claimants are aggrieved by award of compensation that what they were entitled to i.e. Rs.34,72,600/- along with interest.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3- Insurance Company has defended the impugned Award and submits that without any valid salary slip, the compensation has been awarded and the income of the deceased has been computed to be