ORDER

These two misc. appeals have arisen out of a common award passed by 18th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.2214/2016 and MACC No.2213/2016 delivered on 29.06.2019. Under this impugned award, respondent no.1 of Misc. Appeal No.5563/2019 was awarded a compensation of Rs.3,63,134/- alongwith interest and cost of litigation in MACC No.2214/2016 and respondent no.1 of M.A. No.5620/2019 was awarded compensation of Rs.7,86,000/- alongwith interest and cost of litigation in MACC No.2213/2016. As these misc. appeals have arisen out of a common award, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of these misc. appeals are that Satendra Kumar and Kabulal were travelling in the loading vehicle of Surendra bearing registration No.MP-20/GA-5094 on 27.04.2016 at around 5:30 PM; the purpose of travel was to purchase vegetables; this vehicle met with an accident when respondent no.2 of these misc. appeals drove his bus No.MH-04/G-9559 rashly and negligently onto the wrong side of the road; Satendra died on the way to the hospital while Kabulal sustained grievous injuries and permanent disability in the accident. Teerath @ Kabulal was the claimant in MACC No.2214/2016 and Chanda Bai was the claimant in MACC No.2213/2016 claiming compensation for the death of her son Satendra Kumar. In both the claim cases the appellant insurance company was arrayed as respondent no.3

and it contested the claim petitions on the ground of violation of insurance policy. The Tribunal allowed opportunity to the parties to furnish evidence and after appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal rejected the defence of insurance policy and allowed both the claim petitions by fastening the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally on owner, driver and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

3. Both these appeals have been preferred by Insurance Company, claiming that the learned Tribunal passed an award contrary to the material available on record; it failed to acknowledge real facts and circumstances of the case; there was no fitness certificate of the offending bus, which was plying on the road against the requirements of Motor Vehicle Act. Further, the driver of bus was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is also claimed that the assessment of 40% income against future prospect was incorrect as the persons injured in the accident were not salaried or self employed persons but were labourers. It is therefore prayed in both the appeals that the impugned award be set aside so far as it relates to fastening liability upon appellant/Insurance Company and the appellant/Insurance Company be totally exonerated from its liability in both the claim cases.

4. The respondents in both the appeals were served with notice but no one appeared on behalf of owner and driver of the offending vehicle namely respondents no.2 and 3. Respondents no.1 namely the claimants before the Tribunal opposed these misc. appeals through their counsel. 5. Parties have been heard and the records have been perused.

6. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on three counts - first that the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of incident; second that the offending vehicle, i.e. bus was being operated on road without there being a valid fitness certificate and third that the Tribunal wrongly assessed future prospects at 40% while the persons injured in the accident were mere labourers. Let us take these contentions individually.

7. The absence of valid driving licence with the driver was though the plea taken by Insurance Company in its written statement, but that plea was not considered under Issue No.3 framed by the Tribunal. The discussion under that issue was limited only on the point of plying the offending vehicle without a valid fitness certificate. It may be mentioned here that this plea of absence