The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured and the need to prove negligence on the part of the insured in fulfilling the conditions of the insurance policy.

Surinder Gupta, J.

This judgment will dispose of above captioned appeals filed against award dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (later referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim petitions relating to accident dated 29.08.2009 resulting in death of Ravi Chaddha and Rajeev.

2. Parents of Rajeev filed claim petition bearing MACT No. 40 of 15.03.2010 while parents of Ravi Chaddha filed claim petition bearing MACT No. 41 of 2010. Both the claim petitions were decided by common award dated 04.05.2012. The Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.4 lacs each in both the claim petitions, which was calculated as follows:

3. Facts of case are not being discussed in detail as in the appeals (FAOs No. 4917 and 4918 of 2012) Insurance Company is seeking right against insured to recover the compensation amount and decrease in compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and in FAO No. 5677 of 2012, claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation.

Sr. No.	Heads	Calculation
(i)	Income of the deceased	Rs.5000 per month
(ii)	1/2nd of (i) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased	(Rs.5000-­Rs.2500)= Rs.2500 per month
(iii)	Compensation after applying multiplier of 13 as per age of claimants	(Rs.2500X12X13)= Rs.390000
(iv)	Funeral expenses	Rs.5000
(v)	Loss of estate	Rs.5000
	Total	400000

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that driving licence of Raju Kumar-respondent no. 3 driver of the offending vehicle was admittedly fake. Despite this fact, the Tribunal has not allowed right to recover the amount of compensation paid to claimants by the Insurance Company. Insured-owner of the offending (respondent no. 4) had committed breach of terms of the policy by allowing respondent no. 3 who was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, as such, no liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is attracted in this case. He has further argued that the Tribunal had taken income of both the deceased as Rs.5000/per month. Deceased Rajeev was 20 years of age while deceased Ravi Chaddha was 24 years of age. Rajeev was a student who was doing two years software engineering course in IIT Institute at Delhi. His income was alleged as Rs.11,000/per month from tuition. Income of deceased Ravi Chaddha was alleged as Rs.9000/per month from his employment as Marketing Supervisor with M/s Bee Emm Distributors, NIT, Faridabad. However, in the absence of any evidence of their income, the Tribunal assessed their monthly income as Rs.5000/. The accident had taken place in the year 2009. In the absence of any evidence regarding income of the deceased, the Tribunal could take their monthly income as that of a daily wager which in no case was more than Rs.4000/per month.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Tribunal has discussed in detail that driving licence of respondent no. 3-Raju Kumar was fake but it was concluded that there was no violation of terms and conditions on the part of insured. The Tribunal relied on the observations in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru, 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 278 while reaching the conclusion that insured, who had taken enough precautions while employing respondent no. 3Raju Kumar as driver, cannot be held to be liable for breach of terms of insurance policy if driving licence is found to be fake. The Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of vehicle by the duly licenced driver.

6. It is admitted that driving licence of respondent no. 3Raju Kumar was found to be fake. A report from the office of Licensing Authority, Mathura was obtained in this regard. The insured had appeared as R