The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the negligence of the driver and the validity of the driving license, based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company (National Insurance Company Limited) against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short ‘the Tribunal'), in MACT Petition No. RBT-127 of 2014 whereby, a sum of Rs.9,48,600/- along with interest was ordered to be paid as compensation for the death of Rambir in a vehicular accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.4.2014, Rambir (wrongly written as Ram Singh in the Award) was going on motorcycle bearing No.HR-10H-5634 to his field for harvesting the wheat crop and his brother, namely Pradeep was going to give food for labourers at his field. At about 10.30/11 p.m., Pradeep was standing on Jhajjar-Badli road to cross the road towards his field. In the meantime, when Rambir Singh tried to cross the road on his motorcycle from his fields, an Alto Car bearing No.DL-4C-AA-4968, which was being driven by respondent No.3 - Surender Singh came from Jhajjar side in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and struck against the motorcycle of Rambir, due to which he fell down on the road and the motorcycle fell in the pit besides the road. Rambir sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. He was brought to Govt. Hospital, Jhajjar, where he was declared dead.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading that the deceased was aged about 45 years, he was doing agricultural work and was also running a milk dairy in the village and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. Upon notice, respondents No.3 and 4 appeared and filed their joint written statement by taking objections regarding maintainability of the petition, locus-standi, cause of action, concealment of material facts from the court and that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Appellant – insurer filed separate written statement and took similar objections, besides pleading contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

5. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of following issues:-

“1. Whether Rambir (deceased) had sustained serious and grievous multiple injuries in a road accident on 23.04.2014 at about 10.30/11.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Alto car bearing registration No.DL-4CA-AA-4968 driven by respondent No.1 Surender Singh and insured by respondent No. 3? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in favour of petitioners, whether petitioners are entitled to get compensation against respondentno.1,2 & 3 and if so to what amount and from which, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident? OPR

4. Whether the respondent No.1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy etc.? OPR-3

5. Relief.”

6. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and it was held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-4C-AA-4968 by respondent Surender Singh. In the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.6000/- per month. The deceased being 45 years old, 30% increase in the income was granted and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The monthly dependency was assessed at Rs.5200 and after applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.8,73,600/- (5200x12x14). Besides, Rs.25,000/- each, for ‘loss of consortium', ‘funeral expenses' and ‘loss of love and affection' was also awarded.

7. Assailing the impugned award, Ld. Counsel for the appellant–insurer has raised two points – (i) that the offending vehicle was falsely involved in the accident as neither the registration number of the offending Alto car nor the name of its driver was mentioned in the FIR and (ii) that its driver was not having a valid driving license to drive a car, as he was possessing a driving license to drive ‘