JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,000 under section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to one Madathi Ammal for the death of her husband, Paramasiva Konar in a faffic accident. The accident itself took place at 4-30 a.m. on 8th January, 1969. While the deceased was driving his single bullock cart in an easterly direction along the TirunelveliTiruchendur Main Road, west of Vittilapuram Vilakku, lorry MDT 7441 belonging to Badrakali Ammal (the first respondent in the Court below) and insured with the appellant and driven by one Ramachandran dashed against the bullock cart, with the result the deceased was thrown off the cart and killed on the spot.

2. After the accident, the driver himself laid Exhibit A-3, the first information report, in which he stated that while driving, he had a nap for a second, with the result his lorry dashed against the bullock cart, and the driver of the cart and the bullock died on the spot. On foot of this first information report, the driver was prosecuted under section 304-A and 279, Indian Penal Code before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirulnelveli, and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and three months respectively. In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that the plea of rashness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver has been established and he is not prepared to challenge the finding in this behalf.

3. The next question that arises for consideration is, what is the quantum of compensation payable to the widow of the deceased ? The evidence of P.W. 1, the widow is that her husband used to earn about Rs. 5 every day and that at the time of the accident he was aged 40. But for the accident, it is not unlikely that he would have lived for another 20 years. If he had been paying even Rs. 75 per mensem, to his dependant wife, he would have paid Rs. 900 per year to her for a period of 20 years. Even making allowance for the lump sum payment, I would have fixed the amount of compensation at a much higher figure than the amount of Rs. 5,000 fixed by the Tribunal. However, as the claimant has not preferred any appeal, I confirm the quantum fixed by the Tribunal.

4. The third and most important question raised by the Insurance Company may next be considered. Exhibit B-1 is the history sheet of Ramachandran, who drove the lorry and caused the accident. This history sheet has been maintained in the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli. It is found therefrom that the driving licence originally issued to Ramachandran expired on 27th November, 1968. Under section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

“ A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act as to the cancellation of driving licences and the disqualification of holders of driving licences for holding or obtaining driving licences, be effective without renewal for a period of three years only, from the date of the issue of the driving licence, or, as the case may be, from the date with effect from which the driving licence is renewed under section 11, and the driving licence shall be deemed to continue to be effective for a period of thirty days after the date of its expiry.”

By force of section 10, therefore, the licence of Ramachandran shall be deemed to continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from 27th November, 1968. In other words, it must be deemed to have been in force till 27th December, 1968. Actually, Ramachandran appears to have renewed his licence, not within the period of the grace allowed by section 10 of the Act, but with effect from 10th January, 1969. Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act:

“ Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document