The burden of proof lies with the Insurance Company to establish policy violations by the insured, and the court may rely on legal principles and previous judgments to determine liability and assess compensation.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The above mentioned two appeals, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned award dated 11.04.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur.

Facts not in dispute

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that on 31.12.2006, Raghbir Singh (since deceased) along-with his son Jasprit Singh and daughters Mandeep Kaur, Prabhjot Kaur and Ramanjit Kaur was coming from Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur on his maruti car bearing registration No. PB08-T-3235. He was followed by Hardip Singh and his son Surjit Singh When they reached near petrol pump situated in the area of village Piplanwala, a truck bearing registration No. PN-08-A-7705 driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and struck against the car driven by Raghbir Singh. The occupants of the car received multiple injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where Raghbir Singh and his minor son were declared brought dead. F.I.R. No. 104 dated 31.12.2006 under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 at P.S. Model Town, Hoshiarpur.

3. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal awarded the lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of death of minor Jasprit Singh (aged 12 years).

4. In FAO No. 2487-2010, at the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/owners and driver has referred to judgment of this Court in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Raj Ram and others, (2008-4) 152 PLR 539 wherein truck hit a motor cycle and motorcyclist sustained fatal injuries. The Insurance Company was seeking to avoid its liability on the ground that truck was being plied by the insured without any permit. However, the Insurance company failed to produce any evidence to the effect that owner had not obtained any permit or route permit which was required in the State. The appeal of the Insurance Company was dismissed and the Insurance company was held responsible to pay the compensation. The operative part of the judgment has been reproduced as under:-

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and pursued the record. However, I find no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant. However, in case in hand, the appellant has failed to prove that the truck in question was being plied by the insured in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that a specific issue was framed to the effect that whether truck in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the onus to prove this issue was upon the appellant and since the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to prove this issue, the finding on this issue was held against the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and has referred to judgment of this Court in a case of Sunita Devi and another v. Vijay Pal and others, 2018 (2) Law Herald 1659 wherein this Court took the notional income of the deceased (child) at Rs. 50000/- and applied the multiplier of 15.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent driver has vehemently opposed the present appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The appeal of the owners and driver deserves to be allowed. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that breach of condition of a policy committed by the insured, like non-issuance of licence, has to be proved by the Insurance Company if it wishes to avoid liability. In the summary of defences in para 110 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed in sub-paras (iii) and (iv) as