The main legal point established in the judgment is the owner's duty to ensure the driver's competence and the insurer's onus to prove the invalidity of the driver's license.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The owner and driver have filed the present appeal against the award dated 14.10.2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, respondent No.1- the Insurance company has been absolved of liability to pay the compensation and the appellants have been held jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation.

2. The case set up in the claim petition was that on 16.11.2014, Krishan Kumar son of Mahavir Singh was on his way to attend his duties at PGIMS, Rohtak on Motorcycle No.HR-12T-2071. His brother Chand Singh and one Manender son of Desh Raj resident of village Dhakla were following him on their separate motorcycle. When they just crossed Govt. School, Hassanpur towards Jhajjar, a bus having Registration No.HR-14E- 0777 (the offending vehicle) which was being driven by appellant no.2 in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jhajjar and hit the motorcycle of Krishan Kumar. As a result of the injuries sustained, Krishan Kumar died. FIR No.795, dated 17.11.2014 under Section 279, 304-A, IPC, Police Station Jhajjar was registered at the instance of Chand Singh.

3. On the basis of the evidence, the Ld. Tribunal concluded that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by appellant no.2. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 6000/- per month. 30% increase was granted on account of future prospects. Considering that the deceased had left behind five legal heirs, 1 /4th of the monthly income was deducted for his personal expenses. Multiplier of 14 was applied. The total dependency was assessed at Rs. 9,82,800/-. Rs. 1 lac was awarded on account of 'loss of consortium'. Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 11,07,800/- was awarded.

4. On the issue of liability, it was noticed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.1-Insurance company w.e.f. 29.3.2014 to 28.3.2015. The accident had taken place on 16.11.2014. Thus, it was concluded that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was insured.

5. The Tribunal noticed that at the time of his arrest, the driver - appellant no.2 had produced his driving licence, Ex.R-7 before the police. As per information received under RTI, from the Licensing Authority, Hisar, it was revealed that the said licence had neither been issued by that Authority nor renewed by it. Hence, it was found to be fake. Later on, the driver placed on record, a second driving licence, Ex.RW-2/B got issued from District Transport Officer, Tuensang (Nagaland). The Tribunal held that as in terms of section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a person could not validly hold two licences, hence, the owner and driver could not escape liability by introducing a second licence.

6. Assailing the aforesaid finding, Shri Lekh Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that RW-1 Mahavir Singh had deposed before the Tribunal that the Appellant society had appointed appellant no.2 as driver for the offending vehicle after verification of his driving licence No.25793/TSG/PROF/2010 which was valid upto 15.11.2017 for driving Motorcycle/LMV/HTV etc. The driver had applied for issuance of Smart Card in lieu of his driving licence and in token of the same, the Authority had issued a temporary slip, Ex.R-8. He also produced information slip, Ex.R-9 which clearly revealed that the driver had an effective driving licence on the date of accident. Reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, 2013 (10) SCC 217 . Mr. Sharma further argued that the Tribunal had specifically noted that driving licence Ex.RW- 2/B had not been verified by the Insurance company and found to be fake. Hence, the same was to be presumed to be valid. He accordingly, contended that the finding of the Tribunal absolving the Insurance company of liability could not be