Judgment on Board

1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. in Claim Case No.74/2014, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,34,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 which was directed to be paid by appellant/Insurance Company and Respondent No.6. The compensation was directed to carry 6% per annum interest from the date of claim petition till its realization.

2. The facts of the case as per the claimants are that on 01-01-2014 at about 3.00 PM, deceased Ishwar Sinha was driving one motor cycle, and at the same time from the front side, another offending Motor Cycle no. C.G. 07 A.L. 2789 driven by Gulbeg came driven in a rash manner and dashed the above motor cycle driven by Ishwar Sinha, and due to accident both Ishwar Sinha and Gulbeg died. Due to death of driver Ishwar Sinha, this claim petition was filed, before tribunal. That in this claim petition, owner and Insurance company of this motor cycle no. C.G. 07 L.G. 8223 driven by Ishwar Sinha, were necessary party, and in absence of necessary party, above claim petition was liable to dismissed. Against driver Gulbeg, for offending motor cycle no. C.G. 07 A.L. 2789, FIR was lodged, as per para 17 of award but due to death of above driver Gulbeg, above criminal report was dropped by the police. That, even after demand of document of driving licence of driver Gulbeg by appellant insurance company through notice to produce document from owner of offending motor cycle no. C.G. 07 A.L. 2789, but no document of driving licence could be supplied by respondent no. 6 Ramjan Beg in compliance of section 134 M.V. Act, but tribunal wrongly awarded, against the appellant insurance company, which may be considered by this Court. That the tribunal has wrongly awarded excess compensation, which may be considered. Further, the tribunal has wrongly awarded penal interest, which may be considered. Because above accident occurred due to fault of both the motor cycles and dashed from front side, hence on the basis of contributory negligence, matter was to be decided by the tribunal.

3. The Tribunal after considering that no documentary evidence has been produced with regard to the income of the deceased, held the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.36,000/-. 1/3 of the annual income which comes to Rs.12,000/- was held personal expenses and accordingly, yearly dependence was held to be Rs.24,000/-. Deceased was aged about 36 years and by applying the multiplier of 16, Rs.3,84,000/- was calculated to be the quantum for dependence. Funeral expenses to be Rs.10,000/-, for loss of filial consortium Rs.20,000/- and for loss of parental consortium Rs.20,000/- and thereby, total of Rs.4,34,000/- was granted as compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 07 AL 2789 was being driven by Gulbeg without driving license as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. He further submits that even after giving notice to produce document of driving license from Respondent No.6, no driving license was produced by Respondent No.6. In compliance of Section 134 of Motor Vehicle Act, copy of driving license was to be supplied in the record of Tribunal, however, even after demand, the same was not supplied by Respondent No.6. As after supply of details of driving license, Insurance Company will inquire about the genuineness of the said document of driving license. He lastly submits that in a similar case arising out of same accident bearing No.MAC/1152/2018, the Insurance company has been exonerated from the liability by this Court and the penal interest has also been set aside. Thus, th