Point of Law: Amount of deduction for personal expenses of deceased would also be as per settled legal provision namely one third.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. These appeals arise out of same accident and hence decided by this common judgment .

2. F.A.F.O. No. 3288 of 2007 is preferred at the instance of Oriental Insurance Company. The F.A.F.O. No. 3442 of 2007 is preferred at the instance of claimants, who are dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in impugned award dated 20.08.2007 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court Room No.2, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 564 of 2000 (Smt. Gitanjali Sharma and others Vs. Sant Kumar and others).

3. The brief facts as narrated in the Claim Petition No. 564 of 2000 are that Swami Nath Sharma (deceased) S/o Late Sri Salig Ram Sharma resident of 98/1-H, Himmatganj, Allahabad was traveling along with Vijay Shyam (Ardali) by the Jeep No. UGP/7448, driven by Sri Ramesh Kumar from Pratapgarh to Bhopiamau for government work on 13.02.2000 when at 7.30 PM. a truck bearing no. UP 42B 0251, driven by its driver rashly and negligently was plied ahead of the Jeep and all of sudden the driver stopped the Truck in the middle of the road whereby the jeep 'collided' with truck resulting in the death of Swami Nath on the spot. Swami Nath Sharma was 46 years 8 months and 12 days old. He was government servant posted as district non-formal education officer at Pratapgarh and he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 18879/-. after his death he left his widow, his mother, two brothers and two sons of brother. The FIR of accident was lodged with the police station Kotwali Nagar, which was registered on Case Crime No. 85 of 2000, under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC against the unknown truck driver of Truck No. UP 42B 0251. The owner of the truck was Sant Kumar and Ram Babu i.e. opposite party nos. 1 and 2; while the jeep was driven by Ram Phakirey opposite party no.3. The offending truck and jeep were insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, that is opposite party nos.4 & 5. Hence, compensation of Rs. 88,06,139/-was claimed by the claimants.

4. On behalf of opposite parties nos.4 and 5, joint written statement was filed with the averments that driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license and the alleged accident was not caused due to negligence of truck driver. Hence, the Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation.

5. On behalf of opposite party no.3, the driver of the jeep, averments made in the claim petition were supported in the written statement to certain extent. No written statement was filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

6. The Tribunal passed the award on 20.08.2007 granting compensation of Rs. 15,38,452/- and Oriental Insurance Company insurance company of Truck was directed to pay the amount of the award to claimants widow and mother.

7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the evidence on record. Parties are refereed as appellant insurance company or Insurance company and respondent claimants as claimants.

8. The F.A.F.O. No. 3288 of 2007 is preferred at the instance of Oriental Insurance Company, who are aggrieved by fastening of the liability to pay the amount of award though there is a finding that there is breach of policy.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the driver of the offending truck was having the driving license for heavy passenger vehicle and he was driving heavy goods vehicle for which he was not authorized to drive. As such the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened on the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company. It is submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the Tribunal itself has held that drivers of both the vehicles were not possessing valid driving license, therefore, the liability can not be set up on t