ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mornea, in MACC No.6/2017 on 22.11.2018 Insurance Company as well as claimants have preferred these two appeals which are being decided by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day i.e. 25.8.2016 Ramniwas was going to his field, at that time, on Senthari Bilgaon Road, driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.MP06/MH 1573, which was in the ownership of Lakshaman Jatav (respondent No.1 in the M.A. filed by the claimants) and insured with Insurance Company, by driving the said motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed him, due to which he got serious injuries and died. Incident was seen by Bhoopsingh, PrabhudayaL and others. Report was lodged at police Station, Bagchini, against driver of the motorcycle. He was arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against him. At the time of accident age of the deceased was found between 42-43 years and by selling Chat he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Claimant No.1 is his wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are his sons and claimant No.4 is his 80 years old mother. All the claimants were dependent on his aforesaid income. Due to his death, they became helpless and for getting compensation, they filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal and learned Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/- by assessing income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that despite appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which is on very lower side. On the date of accident i.e. 25.8.2016 as per the guidelines of State Legal Services Authority minimum wages of even an unskilled labourer were fixed at Rs.6,850/-. Therefore, income of the deceased be accordingly modified.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence. He drew attention of this Court to Ex.D/3, registered notice issued to the driver and owner of the motorcycle to produce driving licence. Postal receipts are Ex.D/3 & Ex.D/4. Despite receiving the said notice, they have not produced driving licence. Beside this, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under section 304-A of IPC read with section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Insurance Company has also adduced evidence of Branch Manager Subhash Thosare who has stated that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence because after giving notice Ex.D/2, he has not produced driving licence. Learned counsel further submits that learned Claims Tribunal in case of non-deposit of awarded amount within two months, awarded interest @ 9% which is on higher side.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Driver submits that learned Claims Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned award has elaborately discussed that evidence of Investigator Ravi Kashyap is not reliable because he was not authorized to record statement of driver of the offending vehicle. Insurance company has utterly failed to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that Insurance Company has discharged his liability by giving notice to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to produce driving licence, but despite notice by registered post, they have not produced any driving licence. They remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. Beside this, after investigation of the crime, charge-sheet has been submitted under section 3/18