JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. First Appeal From Order No. 1270 of 2022 has been preferred by appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 18.01.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 459 of 2016 (Umesh Pal and Another vs. Uttam Ghosh and Others) whereby the claimants were awarded compensation Rs. 1,37,12,904/- with 7% per annum rate of interest.

3. Claimants have preferred the aforesaid appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. The National Insurance Company insurer of truck (vehicle) involved in the accident has also preferred Appeal No. 1377 of 2020 against the aforesaid award challenging the same and for setting aside the award in question/modification qua compensation, negligence and liability of Insurance Company are concerned.

4. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that a claim petition was filed by claimants, who are legal representatives of deceased. The averments in the petition are that on 3.8.2016 the deceased Gaurav Kumar was driving Motorcycle No. WB-20N-1364. When the deceased was going to his room with his friend Virendra Kumar at about 4.30 p.m. and when the deceased reached the gate of M.I.M.T. Colony on Taratola Road, a tanker No. WB-19E-8494 came from behind which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the motorcycle of deceased from behind. In this accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries due to which he died on the spot. Deceased Gaurav Kumar was serving in Merchant Navy as a Cadet.

5. On summons being issued, Respondent No. 3, Insurance Company Ltd filed its written statement, but no written statement was filed by driver or owner of the aforesaid Tank involved in the accident.

6. The Apex Court in UPSRTC vs. Km. Mamta and Others, AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court.

7. The accident having occurred is now not in dispute, involvement of truck though initially disputed by Insurance Company, qua involvement but finding of tribunal about involvement is not in dispute in challenge by either side while going through the grounds of challenge of the insurance Company, the insurance company has contended that non consideration of contributory negligence of the deceased in light of the facts and circumstances and holding the driver of the truck to be solely liable is bad in eye of law.

8. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The Insurance Company has challenged the liability imposed on them. It is submitted by counsel for Insurance company, the finding that the driving licence of the driver of tanker was valid and effective is bad and on this ground the impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set aside qua the Insurance Company.

9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Insurance company that the driving licence of the deceased was not valid and effective on the date of accident i.e. on 03.08.2016 as it was valid to drive transport vehicle w.e.f. 26.08.2019 to 25.08.2024 and that there was no endorsement for hazardous goods whereas Tanker in question was heavy goods vehicle capable of carrying of hazardous goods but the Tribunal illegally held that the driving licence of Tanker driver was valid and effective hence on this ground also impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

10. It is an admitted position of fact that deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased, namely, the parents of the deceased, the multiplier would be as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050, which would have to be g