The insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation or indemnify the insured if the insured himself was driving the vehicle and possessed a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle, even if there was no specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, unless the driver was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. The order passed in this appeal will also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 323 of 1995 (Shamsher Khan v. Mohd. Karim Khan). This is claimants' appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 29.11.1994 passed in Claim Case No. 12 of 1991 by the Vth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus: On 6.3.1991, the deceased Mohd. Ismail was travelling as a passenger in autorickshaw No. MPO 23-B-1005 owned and driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. Due to the negligent driving, the autorickshaw turned turtle as a result of which Mohd. Ismail received severe injuries. He was taken to D.K. Hospital but could not survive. The widow Koushar Suraiya, who died during the pendency of the application under Section 166 of the Act, for compensation along with appellants as legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 5,53,000 for the death of Mohd. Ismail caused in motor accident. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of autorickshaw, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, that is, 3.5.1991 till realisation. The respondent No. 1 was made liable to pay the compensation, absolving the respondent No. 2, as the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid licence.

3. Mr. AloK Aradhe, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded is not just and fair. The deceased was aged 47 years and was employed in Government Primary School at Ramnagar, Raipur, whose gross pay was Rs. 2,360 as is proved by Exh. A-1. The Tribunal estimated the dependency at Rs. 1,100 per month, yearly Rs. 13,200, in that a multiplier of 10 was applied, the amount was worked out to Rs. 1,32,000. The Tribunal had not taken into account the future prospects of advancement in life and career which also ought to have been sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand; multiplier selected is also on the lower side. Besides the conventional amount for consortium and loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses ought to have been awarded. A decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), was cited. Absolvement of the respondent No. 2 was challenged as illegal because the owner himself was driving who was holding valid driving licence, Exh. A-6, to drive light motor vehicles. It merely did not bear the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle; but he was not disqualified to drive the transport vehicle, that is, autorickshaw, which the Tribunal has not taken into consideration.

4. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, though submitted that the award of compensation is just and fair and does not call for enhancement but challenged the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. It was submitted that the policy of insurance, Exh. D-1, was for contract carriage. It was autorickshaw, a light motor vehicle permitted to carry 3 passengers besides the driver. The policy specifies the persons who arc entitled to drive, which reads thus:

Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive: Any of the following --

(a) The insured.

(b) Any other person who is driving on insured's order or with his permission.

Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured here-under.

The insured was the driver, who was possessed of driving licence of light motor vehicle and was not disqualified to drive a light transport vehicle, therefore, the insurance company c