Insurer liable to pay motor accident death compensation to third-party claimants despite driver's invalid licence, with right to recover from owner-driver; enhanced quantum includes 25% future prospects, 1/4th personal expenses deduction for three dependents.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and award and involve identical questions of fact and law. Accordingly, both the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants Smt. Basanti Devi and others, under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.8,25,605/- on account of the death of Kishan Singh Bisht in a road accident. The Appeal from Order No.400 of 2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement while Appeal from Order No.361 of 2012 by the insurance company for quashing the impugned award.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2008, the deceased had gone to Bhowali to sell peas and was returning to his village Bana in Jeep No. UP-02C- 5712. At about 11:30 A.M., when the vehicle reached approximately one kilometre ahead of Laxmikhan on the Bhowali–Mukteshwar motor road, the driver, due to rash and negligent driving, lost control of the vehicle. Consequently, the jeep fell into a deep gorge, resulting in the death of Kishan Singh Bisht on the spot. Other passengers travelling in the jeep also sustained serious injuries. Due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, petitioner no.1 was deprived of the love and companionship of her husband, while petitioner nos.2 and 3 were deprived of the love, affection, and guidance of their father. Hence, the petitioners prayed for payment of compensation against the opposite parties.

4. In Appeal No. 400 of 2012, the appellant/claimant pleaded that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family consisting of his wife and two children, was aged about 44 years at the time of the accident, and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,475/- from agricultural work. Due to his untimely death, the family lost its only source of livelihood. It was further pleaded that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting one- third (1/3rd) of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses, whereas all three claimants were fully dependent upon him. As per settled judicial precedents, the deduction ought to have been one-fourth (1/4^th). The claimant further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the deceased and wrongly assessed funeral expenses at a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-. It was also submitted that additional compensation ought to have been awarded under the conventional heads.

Opposite Party No.1, Mahendra Kumar alias Guddu, the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, denied the allegations for want of knowledge. He submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with Opposite Party No.2, The New India Assurance Company Limited. He further claimed that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to rash or negligent driving. According to him, the compensation claimed was exaggerated.

Opposite Party No.2 (Insurance Company) denied the material allegations and pleaded that it was not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was specifically pleaded that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The insurance company also claimed the right to contest the petition on all grounds available to the owner.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

A. Whether on 06.05.2008, Kishan Singh had gone to Bhowali to sell peas and w