The multiplier method for assessing compensation in motor accident cases involves determining the loss of dependency and capitalizing it by an appropriate multiplier, considering the age of the deceased and the expected duration of dependency.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short' the Act') aggrieved of the common award, dated 15.2.1991, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 9 and 10 of 1989, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sarda.

2. On 19.2.1989 deceased Jokhilal was going on a motor cycle with two pillion riders, namely, Madanlal and Akhtar. He was dashed by truck No. MPN 5359 as a result of which Jokhilal died at spot and the other two riders of the motor cycle received injuries. On the date of accident the truck was being driven by respondent No. 5 during the course of employment of respondent No. 6, the owner of the truck which was insured with the appellant. The legal representatives of the deceased Jokhilal filed an application under Section 166 of the Act to claim compensation of Rs. 24,60,000/- for the death caused due to negligent act of the truck driver. The injured Madanlal also filed application to claim compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. The owner and driver remained ex parte, therefore, the appellant company was permitted to contest the claims on all grounds which were available to owner. The Tribunal after appreciation of common evidence adduced by the parties in both the cases held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of truck driver. To determine compensation in Claim Case No. 9 of 1989 the Tribunal found that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per annum from his 7 acres of agricultural land. The evidence of the respondents/claimants about additional income of Rs. 60/- per day of the deceased by doing the job of mechanic was disbelieved. The Tribunal on the admission of the claimants that after the death of the deceased the land was given on bated, deducted 50 per cent of the amount from Rs. 25,000/- and estimated the dependency at Rs. 13,000/- wherein a multiplier of 18 was applied. Amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 2,34,000 which was awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application.

3. Mrs. Sudha Pandit, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the insurer appellant was not liable to pay any compensation or to indemnify the owner as the driver of the truck was not holding a valid licence which was proved by Sushilendra Rao, NAW 1, the Assistant Officer of the appellant. The award of compensation was also challenged as highly excessive as looking to the age of the deceased and dependants multiplier of 18 could not have been applied. Lastly, it was submitted that the liability of the appellant company in terms of policy Exh. D-1 was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- as no additional premium was paid to cover the unlimited liability.

4. Mr. Sharad Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the award and submitted that compensation deserves to be enhanced as the Tribunal ought not to have deducted half of the amount from the earnings of the deceased which the claimants were getting by giving the land on bated after the death of the deceased.

5. The contention that the driver was not holding a valid licence has not been established by evidence. The statement of NAW 1 does not establish the plea raised by the appellant. He only stated that after the accident driver of the vehicle or the owner did not produce the licence before the insurance company. This is neither here nor there. The appellant company has not discharged the burden by adducing legal evidence, i.e., by examining R.T.O. or any officer of the R.T.O. that the driver of the vehicle was not issued any licence. In such circumstances relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) and Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal 1991 ACJ 1 (SC), we hold that the appellant company has failed to establish the plea, therefore, was rightly held responsible to indemnify the insured and to pay compensation.

6. Regarding compensation: For computing compensati