The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner and the insurance company under section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award of the Claims Tribunal directing payment of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A cross-objection has been filed by the claimants claiming higher compensation.

( 2 ) THE accident occurred on 9. 4. 1996. The claimants are the parents of deceased byomakesh who was a student of Plus II. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the present appellant.

( 3 ) THOUGH the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the finding regarding negligence of the driver of the vehicle, on a careful perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as materials on record, such contention cannot be accepted. The finding is based on discussion of relevant materials on record. Moreover, the driver of the offending vehicle having not been examined, adverse inference is to be drawn against the owner/ insurance company.

( 4 ) THE next question relates to the quantum of compensation payable. Even though the appellant has challenged the quantum payable, it is apparent that a sum of rs. 1,00,000 paid to the parents for the death of their son who was reading in Plus ii appears to be on the lower side. The claimants had relied upon the decisions u. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC); Adikanda sethi v. Palani Swami Saran Transports, 1997 ACJ 939 (SC); Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans, Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) and Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, 1998 ACJ 848 (SC ). Though the Claims Tribunal noticed the aforesaid decisions, it negatived the contention of the claimants for payment of higher compensation by observing in rather cavalier manner:". . . NO one can foretell the future of a young boy if in future he would be Sraban Kumar or Ajat Satru. So in absence of any prescribed norm to calculate notional income of the deceased and quantum of compensation in the circumstances it would be just and proper to grant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh ). . . "there is no dispute that the father of the deceased was a Reader in a college and the deceased was studying in Plus II. In normal course, therefore, one would have expected that the deceased would have completed his studies and would have been gainfully employed. The observation of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased could have become 'ajat Satru' (who had killed his father) appears to be rather cynical. It is true that in such matters it will be difficult for any court to come to any conclusion about future contingencies. However, awards given in different cases under similar circumstances are always considered as guideline. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the various decisions cited by the claimants, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 can be assessed as reasonable compensation.

( 5 ) THE next question relates to inter se liability of the owner vis-a-vis that of the insurance company. The Claims Tribunal saddled the liability on the owner on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive the particular vehicle in question. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that no specific issue had been framed on this aspect and as such prejudice has been caused. On going through the judgment I find that appropriate issue has not been framed and adequate material have not been brought on record. Even though the person driving had only a learner's licence, question may crop up whether he was driving the vehicle in presence of any other having valid driving licence. Interest of justice requires that the question relating to inter se liability of the owner vis-a-vis that of the insurance company should be re-determined by framing appropriate issue on this aspect and by giving further opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

( 6 ) THE learned cou