The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the breach of policy conditions regarding holding a valid license by the driver is so fundamental that it has contributed to the cause of the accident.

M. M. KUMAR, J.

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the award dated 20.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, yamunanagar (for brevity, "the Tribunal" ). The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that accident had taken place on 12.2.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus No. HR-45-5480 by its driver Palia Ram. The contention to the contrary that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the motor-cyclist, the deceased, has not been accepted by the Tribunal. The defence of false implication of driver has also not been accepted. It has further been found that the motor-cyclist, namely, ravinder Kumar, has died in the afore-mentioned accident. There was a controversy with regard to the validity of the driving licence and its renewal. The Insurance company has argued that the driving licence has expired on 23.10.2003 i. e. much before the date of accident on 12.2.2004. It was pointed out that the driving licence was renewed with effect from 14.9.2005 to 13.9.2008. However, it was submitted on behalf of the driver as well as the owner that the driving licence was renewed from the back date and the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove on record that the application for renewal of the licence has not been filed before the expiry of 30 days despite a specific issue placing onus on the appellant-Insurance company. It has been held that in these circumstances although the driving licence was not renewed on the date of accident, yet there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the driver and the owner. The views of the tribunal are discernible from para 21 of the Award and the same reads as under:-

"after hearing the ld. counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that the respondent No.3 Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability to a compensate the claimants because firstly, it is not proved on the file that the application for renewal of the licence was moved by the respondent No.1 after 30 days of its expiry and secondly, even if the driving licence was not renewed on the date of accident then also there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance Policy by respondent No.1 and 2. In these circumstances, all the respondents i. e. resp. no.1 being driver, respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the bus are jointly and severally liable to make payment of the compensation amount. "

2. The tribunal further found that monthly income of deceased ravinder Kumar could be taken as Rs.2400.00 P. M. on the basis of minimum wages. In that regard the Tribunal has concluded as under:-

"keeping in view the minimum wages, the monthly income of ravinder Kumar can be taken as Rs.2,400.00 per month, out of which he was supposed to spend 1/3rd on his own expenses and thus monthly dependency comes to Rs.19,200.00 . Taking into consideration the age of claimants as 45 years, as such a suitable multiplier of 13 is justified. While applying the said multiplier, the total compensation on account of dependency comes to Rs.2,49,600.00 . In addition to it, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000.00 on account of funeral expenses of the deceased Ravinder Kumar and they are further entitled to sum of Rs.2,500.00 on account of loss of estate. Thus, a just, fair and reasonable total compensation amount which can be awarded to the petitioners is assessed as follows:-

i) Compensation on account of 2,49,600.00 dependency ii) Compensation on account of 3,000.00 funeral expenses iii)Compensation on account of loss 2,500.00 total: 2,55,100.00 (Rounded to Rs.2,55,000.00 )

Mr. Suman Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the driving licence has been renewed with effect from 14.9.2005 and not from the date it had expired i. e.23.10.2003. On that basis, learned counsel wanted us to presume that the application must