JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company.

Perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

4. As there is no dispute regarding death of deceased Afsanabanu, aged about 10 years, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 06.05.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/B-0188 by its driver and the liability is on the owner of the goods vehicle. The only point that arises for court consideration in the appeal is, “i) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any interference?

ii) Whether insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/B-0188 is liable to pay entire compensation?”

5. The respondent has taken contention that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Thus the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/B-0188 knowingly permitted the driver to take the vehicle on road and hence, committed breach of policy condition. Thus, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In order to substantiate this contention, the insurer produced Ex.R2 – RC extract, Ex.R3 – DL extract and Ex.R4 – Insurance Policy. From the perusal of Ex.R4 – Insurance Policy, the insurance was valid as on the date of the accident and the offending vehicle stands in the name of 1st respondent and as per Ex.R3 – DL extract, the driver possessed LMV three wheeler (NT), LMV three Wheeler Cab and LMV (NT) Car. Therefore, as per Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, the vehicle involved in the accident was light goods vehicle, the driver should possess LMV transport licence. From the perusal of Ex.R3 – DL extract, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid licence to drive the light goods vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal held that insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. On the contrary, the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation.

6. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others1, the insurer is liable to pay compensation on account of the negligence caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, in view of pay and recovery principles as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others2 and also in the case of Rani vs. National Insurance Company Limited3. In view of the ratios laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent – Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants, with liberty to recovery the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on lower side and hence, it is required to be enhanced.

8. The claimants in support of their contention that, the deceased was aged about 10 years at the time of accident was helping the claimants in agricultural operations and hence, her income should be considered at Rs.15,000/- per annum.

1 (2016) 4 SCC 298 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 (2018) 8 SCC 492

9. Insofar as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of class 6th to 10th standard. The Tribunal considered the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum appears to be on the lower side. Thus, the income of deceased, aged about 10 years should be Rs.30,000/- per annum, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others4.

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and t