The court clarified that the driver's valid licence must align with the vehicle's classification, and revised the compensation calculation, ultimately reducing it to Rs.13,95,200.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

The appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2016 passed in MVC.No.855/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Tumakuru (for short, "the Tribunal") on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,60,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 22.04.2014 at 5.00 p.m. when Sathish K.C. (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") was standing near Siddaganga Mutt compound to watch the JCB earth work, the operator of JCB bearing registration No.KA-06-N-250, while operating it without observing Sathish K.C., negligently removed the compound wall. As a result, the compound wall fell on Sathish K.C. and he died on the spot. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on various heads.

4. Sri. S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the appellant had issued an insurance policy covering risk of JCB bearing registration No.KA-06-N-2501 as on the date of the accident, and the driver of the JCB was not possessing valid Driving Licence to drive the said JCB. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Further, the Tribunal has awarded high and exorbitant compensation under conventional heads, which needs to be reduced. Further, the Tribunal has also wrongly added 50% towards future prospects by applying the multiplier '18', which is contrary to the principles of law. Thus, he prayed to allow Insurance appeal.

5. Sri. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for Sri.Pratheek K.C., learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents - claimants contended that the accident is of the year 2014 and the Tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m., which ought to have been taken at Rs. 8,500/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. We have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, appeal memo, and the contentions raised by both parties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of appeal memo including records of the Tribunal, the points that arise for our consideration is:

1. Whether the appellant/Insurance Company has proved that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of JCB was not possessing valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the JCB, hence, the insurer of JCB is not liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

7. In the instant appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has specifically contended that though the Insurance Company had issued a policy covering the risk of JCB, the driver of the JCB did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence. However, he was possessing only LMV / Class-I licence. Admittedly, a JCB is not considered a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) or a transport vehicle, but it is a specialized non- transport construction equipment vehicle. While a driving licence for LMV may be c