Future earnings consideration essential for just compensation in accident claims; liability persists even with driving license discrepancies.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. MFA No.103397 of 2018 and MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 arise out of the judgment and award dated 04.06.2018 passed in MVC No.888 of 2015 on the file of X Addl. District Judge and Member, MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. MFA No.103397 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 is filed by the claimants. Both the matters are taken up together for disposal.

3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that claimant Nos.1 to 5 are wife, children and parents of deceased Parushram who met with an accident on 02.02.2015 at 8:30 a.m. while going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/Y-3652, due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.MH-12/BP-3769, near Kotabagi village on Hukkeri-Ghataprabha tar road. As a result of the accident, said Parushram sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries, on 08.02.2015 around 10:45 a.m. It is further the contention of the claimants that deceased Parushram was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. He was agriculture coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and maintaining his entire family. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said car and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car. Both denied all the petition averments. It is the further contended by the insurer that driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. He was holding a Learner's Licence and he was not accompanied by any instructor or any person who was holding driving licence, to drive the said class of vehicle and thereby owner has violated terms and conditions of policy of insurance and hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties in the present petition. Rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said class of vehicle. Liability of respondent/insurer is restricted to the terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the car.

With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal has framed necessary issues.

7. Claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW1 and marked 8 documents as per Exs.P1 to P8. Respondents examined in all two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 4 documents as per Exs.R1 to R4.

8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating material available on record held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and death was caused due to the said accident. Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Parushram and entitled to claim compensation. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month; his age as 26 years; applied multiplier 17; deducted 1/4^th of his income towards personal expenses and calculated compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the conventional heads and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-. The Tribunal has also held that respondent No.2 failed to prove that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and hence the Tribunal directed both respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants