IMPORTANT POINT
The Insurance Company is liable for compensation if it cannot prove the driver lacked a valid license at the time of the accident.

ORDER :

(Hirdesh, J.) :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is arising out of award dated 31-8-2016 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 25/2013 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 1-1-2013 at about 4:10 pm, the deceased Kailash S/o Soma Bheel was standing near Maruti Academy School, Mhow Neemuch Highway Road, suddenly one Tractor bearing registration No. MP43AA-5721 which was driven rashly and negligently by driver of offending vehicle hit the deceased as a result he died after being crushed under a tractor. Thereafter the police has registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle and has filed the charge-sheet before the Magistrate Court. The claimants have filed the claim application for seeking compensation against the respondents for Rs. 12,00,000/- in the motor accident claim case.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement and has denied the averments.

4. The Tribunal has framed the issue and on the basis of pleadings of both the parties and after taking the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,85,000/- as compensation with interest in favour of the claimants/appellants and further totally has exonerated the respondent-Insurance Company.

5. Being aggrieved from the impugned award, the claimants have filed this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability because at the time of accident vehicle was plying without the valid driving license which is the breach of policy condition whereas the appellant is a third party in this accident and hence compensation ought to have been passed against the Insurance Company also. It has been stated that Tribunal has also committed error in not awarding the compensation against the Insurance Company because at the time of accident, the driver was not having the valid driving license but as per the statement of driver he has stated that he was having the driving license of LMV and LTV and as per the statement of driver no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondents regarding liability ought to have been imposed jointly and severally.

6. The claimants have filed this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error in holding the income of deceased was only Rs. 3000/- per month and while the appellant has stated about the job and looking to the large number of family and date of accident the just and judicious income would be assess accordingly. It is also stated that appellants No. 4 and 5 are not dependents as because they are the parents and they lived jointly with the parents and hence just and judicious compensation ought to have been awarded to appellant No. 4 and 5. It is averred that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the future prospects of the deceased and has erred in deducting the 1/3 amount as personal expenses and the Tribunal has not granted compensation in other heads like future prospects, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Hence, counsel prays for reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded to him.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company contended that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and has argued that there shall no further enhancement of compensation.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

9. The Insurance Company has filed the cross-objection and has submitted that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle and he was not an authorized passenger and the Insurance Company has totally exonerated on the ground that the driver of offending vehicle was not having the valid driving license at the time of accident.

10. In rebuttal, counsel for the appellants prays for rejection of cross-objection.

11. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of