JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the final award dated 04th April 2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [“MACT”] (North West District) Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT Petition no. 336/2009 titled as “Asha Rani v. Sukhdev Singh & Ors”.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 [‘MVAct’] by the claimant [respondent no. 1 herein], who was the mother of Sh. Mannu @ Munnu [the deceased], against Sh. Sukhdev Singh [respondent no.2 herein], the driver of the offending vehicle, and Shri Pardeep Singh [respondent no. 3 herein], the registered owner of the offending vehicle, and the Oriental Insurance Company [appellant herein], the insurer of the offending vehicle. She claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in her favour from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

3. The incident occurred on 29th June 2006 at about 2:00 P.M., when the deceased was working as a conductor on the offending vehicle along with two drivers and was on duty. The offending vehicle suffered an accident on the highway in Bangalore; the driver of the offending vehicle having driven it in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle climbed the divider and fell on the left side, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

4. FIR was registered at Police Station Nelamangla, Bangalore. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sh. Sukhdev Singh/respondent no.2, the driver, passed away, and his name was deleted from the array of parties. The owner of the offending vehicle, Shri Pradeep Singh/respondent no.3. was proceeded ex parte.

5. The Insurance Company/ appellant filed its written statement and the matter was adjudicated by the Tribunal. An objection was raised by the Insurance Company/ appellant before the Tribunal that there was no valid insurance policy in relation to the offending vehicle. For this purpose, evidence was led on behalf of Insurance Company/ appellant by R3W1, Mr. Rajesh Arya, Assistant Manager, stating that the Cover Note had been supplied to the owner of the vehicle, Shri Pardeep Singh, and a cheque No. 785944 for Rs. 1,23,720/- drawn on Canara Bank, Rohini Branch, was issued towards the payment of premium for various vehicles including the offending vehicle.

6. The cheque, however, was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds on 24th June 2006, and, accordingly, the Cover Note was cancelled and the owner and Regional Transport Office [RTO] was duly informed. A copy of the cancelled policy had been placed on record along with the original cheque, return memo and the cancelled policy cover note.

7. R3W1, Mr. Rajesh Arya, was cross-examined by the claimant’s counsel but was not cross-examined by the owner.

8. This aspect was assessed by the Tribunal as part of Issue no.2. Based on the contention made by the owner of the vehicle/respondent no.3, that he had deposited the amount in cash towards the insurance of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the owner was under a genuine impression that his vehicle was validly insured and that he would have paid the premium had he received intimation regarding dishonour of the cheque.

9. Based on these facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the offending vehicle was duly insured and decided the issue against the Insurance Company/appellant. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the same as under:

10. Counsel for the respondent no.1/claimant states that the “multiplier of 16” was used by the Tribunal even though the age of the deceased was ‘18 years’, and no loss of consortium or compensation for future prospects was granted.

11. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for the appellant, submits that they have no