R. Banumathi, J.

1. Challenging the fastening of liability and ordering ‘pay and recover’ and also challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.126 of 2003 (9.1.2007) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tiruvallur, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts are that on 5.10.2002 at 1.45 P.M., deceased Venkata Kondaiya was proceeding in his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-22 Y 1596 on Chennai-Minjur Road. While he was nearing Pungambedu bus stand, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-20 Z 3024 belonging to the 5th Respondent coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, Venkata Kondaiya sustained grievous injuries and immediately Venkata Kondaiya was admitted in Stanley Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. A criminal case in Crime No. 646 of 2002 under Sections 279, 304(A) I.P.C. of Minjur Police Station was registered against the lorry driver for rash and negligent driving. At the time of accident, deceased was working as Rivetter in Electrical and Mechanical Department in Chennai Port Trust and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the Claimants who are wife, sons and mother of the deceased have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. Resisting the Claim Petition and denying its liability to pay the compensation, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter stating that the driver of the 5th Respondent (owner of the lorry) had only licence to drive light motor vehicle and the vehicle involved in the accident is heavy motor goods vehicle and that the driver of the 5th Respondent was not having valid driving licence to drive the heavy motor goods vehicle. Since the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive heavy motor goods vehicle and since the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied age, avocation, income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Chinnammal examined herself as P.W.1. Eyewitness Devaraj was examined as P.W.2. Rajan, the then Assistant Superintendent of Chennai Port Trust was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of Appellant-Insurance Company, Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-20 Z 3024. Referring to Ex.R3-Insurance Policy and pointing out that the lorry was having valid insurance coverage from 26.11.2001 to 25.11.2002, the Tribunal held that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. By referring to Ex.R1-history sheet for drivers, Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was holding driving licence for light motor vehicle and the vehicle involved in the accident is heavy goods vehicle and that the driver of the lorry did not have valid driving licence and the Tribunal held that Appellant-Insurance Company shall recover the same from the 5th Respondent-owner of the lorry. Insofar as quantum of compensation, Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/-per annum. Deducting one-third for personal expenses, Tribunal has calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.80,000/-per annum. Adopting multiplier "16", Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.12,80,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.12,89,500/- payable by the Appellant-Insurance Co