The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation in cases of motor vehicle accidents, considering the dependency of the claimant and the potential earnings of the deceased.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. Challenge in the appeal as well as in the Cross Objections is to the award dated 10.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum for death of her daughter Shaveta in road accident and liability to make the payment of compensation has been imposed upon Udha Ram appellant, who is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle,. i.e., truck bearing No. MP-23-D-2404, are that on 5.11.1992 at about 5.30 P.M., Shaveta a young girl of 17 years - was crushed under the said vehicle while she was going on her Moped bearing No. CH-01-F-8683 from her house in Sector 7, Panchkula towards Section 18, Panchkula. Her mother Smt. Jaya Sharma filed a claim petition alleging therein that Shaveta was a brilliant student of 10+2 and she was earning Rs. 2,500/-month from private tuition in Science, Mathematics and other subjects. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was claimed on account of transportation of the dead body. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck as well as the Insurance Company. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-Udha Ram driver of truck No. MP-23-D-2404?....OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?....OPP

3. Whether the respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation on the pleas taken in the written statement?....OPR

4. Relief.

The Tribunal held that the accident had resulted owing to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Udha Ram appellant. The dependency of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 500/- per month and by applying multiplier of 16, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 96,000/-. Besides this, Rs. 1,000/- were awarded on account of transportation charges and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded as funeral expenses. In this way, the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 12% interest. With regard to the liability to pay the compensation, it was held by the Tribunal that Udha Ram, owner/driver of the truck in question, was not holding a valid driving licence. Thus, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability and instead the owner of the truck was held liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimant. Now Udha Ram has filed the appeal wherein challenge has been made to the award of the Tribunal. Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant has filed the cross-objections for upward revision of the amount of compensation.

3 It has been contended by Mr. B.R.Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly dependency of the mother on her young daughter of 17 years, when her husband was alive and Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant could not be dependent on the deceased by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, it has not been proved by leading any cogent evidence that Shaveta deceased was earning by doing tuition work. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal erred in determining the dependency of Smt. Jaya Sharma claimant on the deceased.

4. Another contention raised by Mr. Gupta is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently and that Udha Ram appellant was holding a fake driving licence. It has been contended that the two witnesses examined by the Insurance Company were its employees and, thus, were interested witness. No independent witness from the office of Licensing Authority has been examined to prove the assertions of the Insurance Company that the driving licence adduced on record by Udha Ram appellant was fake. Thus, it has been contended that the Tribunal wrongly absolved the Insurance Company of its liability to