The liability of an insurance company for the death of an employee other than the driver carried in a goods vehicle is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 12.1.1996 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Umaria, Distt. Shahdol.

2. Bare facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as follows: The deceased Raju aged 16 years who was employed as a labourer for the work of loading and unloading on truck No. MPL 3232 met with a motor accident and lost his life on 22.3.1988. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,20,608/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1 who is father of the deceased. The above quantum of compensation was on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs. 16/-per day and would have lived minimum for another 44 years. Multiplying the estimated yearly income by 44, the above amount of compensation has been determined as payable jointly and severally by the owner, driver and insurance company.

3. Mr. B.D. Jain, learned Counsel who appeared for the insurance company, questioned the correctness of the quantum of compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal and argued that it is per se excessive and against settled principles. It is submitted that a multiplier of 44 taken is too high when the maximum multiplier which has been applied by courts is 16. No doubt, the quantum of compensation determined by taking multiplier of 44 appears to this Court as extremely high and against the settled formula of working out the compensation. This court, however, cannot go into the question of quantum of compensation in an appeal preferred by the insurance company because the defences of the insurance company are limited by the provisions of the Act. Two Division Benches of this Court have taken the view that as the defences of insurance company are restricted before the Claims Tribunal, such restrictions with regard to it would also apply to the rights of the insurance company in appeal. [See: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratibha Rathi 1995 ACJ 819 (MP) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamarjahan 1995 ACJ 1150 (MP)].

4. As the defences of the insurance company are restricted, we allowed the learned Counsel for the appellant to raise grounds with regard to the alleged breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and its limited liability under the terms of the said policy.

5. On the question of the alleged breach of conditions of the policy, on behalf of the appellant the learned Counsel invited attention to the contents of photocopy of the driving licence of the driver (respondent No. 3 Chhanga). It is on record and appears to have been filed by the claimants in reply to the plea in that regard taken by the insurance company. It is submitted that the aforesaid driving licence shows that during the period 3.9.1984 to 2.9.1989, the driver possessed licence only to drive light motor vehicles and had no valid licence to drive heavy motor vehicles such as the truck. It is submitted that for want of valid driving licence, the insurance company is absolved of its liability by commission of the breach of the terms of the policy.

6. The above argument advanced cannot be accepted for two reasons. We have carefully examined the contents of the photocopy of the driving licence which is on record. It has not been exhibited in the evidence and nobody has been examined either on behalf of the insurance company or on behalf of the owner or driver to prove the alleged fact of the driver not possessing licence to drive heavy motor vehicles at the relevant time. On a closer examination of the contents of the licence, we find that it was valid for 3.9.1984 to 2.9.1989 and was renewed up to 28.12.95. In the first part for description of vehicle, the entries regarding all other categories of vehicles have been scored out and the entry mentioning 'light motor vehicle' has been tick marked. In the licence, however, there is an entry against entry (f) mentioning 'the category of vehicles to be mentioned in