The burden of proof shifts to the insurer to absolve its liability when the owner satisfies himself with the competence of the driver and the driver is in possession of a valid license.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. - These two appeals are directed against award dated 21.04.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

2. FAO-1277-2011 is at the behest of owner of the vehicle. He is aggrieved by the impugned award to the extent he has been saddled with the ultimate liability as the driving licence of respondent No.5 has been proved to be fake. The other appeal i.e. FAO-6759-2010 has been preferred at the behest of the claimants seeking modification of the award.

3. Both the appeals arise out of common award and involve common set of facts, thus they are being adjudicated together.

4. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the claimants (appellants in FAO-6759-2010) prayed for grant of compensation on account of death of Charanjit Singh (since deceased) in a motor vehicular accident dated 03.01.2007.

5. As per the claim petition, while the deceased was riding scooter No. PB- 23-A-3064, it struck truck No.HR-37-A-8801 which was parked on the road without parking lights. The deceased received multiple injuries including head injury, resulting in his death. FIR No.1 dated 04.01.2007 under Sections 283, 304- A and 427 IPC, at Police Station Khamanon was registered in this regard.

6. The claim was contested by the respondents. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

'1. Whether on 3.1.2007 at about 8.15 PM near Boparai Dhaba, Khamanon Charanjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh died due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-37-A-8801 by respondent No.1 ? OPP

2. Whether the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effecting driving licence as well as the offending vehicle was not holding a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate, route permit at the time of accident? OPR-2

3. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPA.

4. Relief.'

7. In appeal No.6759-2010, the primary dispute relates to issue No.3.

8. Counsel for the claimants asserts that the income of the deceased has been assessed to be Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He claims that the deceased was agriculturist and his income has been proved on record by the oral testimony of CW-2 Ranjit Kaur. He further claims that the claimants are entitled for future prospects @ 40%, as the deceased was 32 years of age. It has also been asserted that meagre sums of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- have been awarded for funeral expenses and for loss of consortium respectively. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of the said amounts in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance vs. Nanu Ram 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333.

9. Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to deny the entitlement of the claimants for enhanced amount under the conventional heads and future prospects. However, they assert that there is no documentary evidence on record in form of revenue record or any other document to substantiate the plea of the deceased being agriculturist. Counsel further asserts that in the absence of there being any evidence on record with respect to the land holding at the hands of the deceased or evidence with respect to the agriculture produce having been sold by him, the income of the deceased cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of oral testimony of Ranjit Kaur.

10. Counsel appearing for the appellant in FAO-1277-2011 disputes finding with respect to issue No.2 and relies upon law laid down by Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, reported as 2013 (10) SCC 217 and that in Ram Chandra Singh vs. Rajaram and others, reported as 2018 (8) SCC 799 to assert that the mere fact that the driving licence is fake per se would not absolve the insurer. Insurer in order to get absolved of the liabi