JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant–Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the judgment and award dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.378 of 2006, Smt Laxmi and another Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and others, whereby compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/- with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants on account of the death of one Kusum in a motor accident dated 21.11.2006.

2. The insured/owner (respondent no. 3) has also filed a cross-objection, essentially challenging the Tribunal’s finding regarding the validity of the driver’s license and praying that the liability fastened upon him under the doctrine of “pay and recover” be set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2006 at about 04:00 P.M., the deceased-Kusum, aged about 17 years, was walking alongside a road, when a Truck No. UA-12-5156, being driven rashly and negligently, hit her. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. An F.I.R. was lodged promptly, and the post-mortem report confirmed death due to multiple injuries.

4. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition No.378 of 2006 under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,10,000/- from the appellant/insurer. It was alleged that the deceased was earning about Rs. 4,500/- per month, by taking tuition classes and knitting-sewing work and was contributing to the family income. The parents were dependent on her.

5. The appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the insurer despite the admitted fact that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. It is urged that such absence is not a mere technical breach but a fundamental violation of Section 3 of the Act and the terms of the policy. By directing the insurer to satisfy the award, the Tribunal has diluted the contractual obligations under Section 149(2) of the Act. The appellant placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai reported in (2006 (2) TAC 1 SC), Sardari & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. Reported in (2008 ACC 426 SC), and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattani & Ors. reported in (2009 ACJ 925), to contend that in cases of a fundamental breach, the insurer cannot be made liable to pay compensation at all.

6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal misapplied the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in (2004 (3) SCC 297), inasmuch as the said judgment does not lay down a blanket proposition that insurers must invariably satisfy awards in all cases of absence of license. The appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal’s approach wrongly equated a case of wholly unlicensed driving with cases of minor irregularities, thereby undermining the deterrent object of the licensing regime.

7. On the quantum of compensation, the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month without any documentary proof. At the relevant time, the structured formula in the Second Schedule prescribed notional income at only Rs. 15,000/- per annum, and thus the award is inflated and contrary to statutory guidance.

8. It is further urged by the appellant that the Tribunal wrongly deducted only one-third amount of salary of the deceased for personal expenses, whereas for an unmarried deceased, deduction of 50% is mandatory as held in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC reported in (2009 (2) TAC 677 SC. The appellant also submits that the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of “16” based on the age of the deceased, which is contrary to law. In the case of an unmarried deceased, the proper multiplier is to be taken with reference to the age of the parents. With t