JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur reducing the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants herein by the Tribunal from Rs.13,32,000/- to Rs.6,96,000/- in an appeal preferred by the claimants in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. One Shiv Shakti Singh while proceeding in a car on 9.4.1998 met with an accident having been hit by a truck bearing registration No. MP- 09-KA-6899. The said truck was owned by the first respondent herein and was being driven at the relevant time by the second respondent. The said truck was insured with the respondnt No.3. As a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident, Shiv Shakti Singh died. The car was also damaged.

4. Appellants herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.31,89,000/-. One of the contentions raised by respondent No.1 was that the accident took place owing to the acts of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. Respondent No.3 furthermore contended that the respondent No.2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

5. Several issues were framed by the Tribunal, inter alia, as regards the breech of policy conditions as also the quantum of compensation. By an award dated 8.2.2001, the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, held :

(a) The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the truck;

(b) The deceased having been earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-, the amount of contribution to his family was about 8,000/- per month and, thus, on application of the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency would be a sum of Rs.12,80,000/- A sum of Rs.15,000 as loss of companionship for applicant No.2, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.35,000/- towards costs of repairing of the Maruti Car, were also granted.

(c) The driver of the truck did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, breach of policy of the contract of insurance was established as a result whereof the respondent No.3 was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle any such amount payable by him by way of compensation payable.

6. Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst, contending:

a) The insurer ought to have baan found to be liable to pay the amount of compensation along with the owner and driver; and

b) The appropriate multiplier adopted should have been 20 instead of 16.

7. Admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the said judgment and award by the owner and driver of the vehicle as also the insurer thereof. Before the High Court, the respondent No.3, inter alia, contended that in the event it be held that it was liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle, it was entitled to contest the quantum of compensation as being excessive. In view of the said contention, the High Court formulated the following questions for its consideration :

"(i) Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore liable to pay the compensation?

(ii) If so, what will be the just compensation?"

8. The High Court, on perusal of the driving licence, the contract of insurance as also the testimonies of witnesses examined on behalf of the parties, held:

"8. We accordingly hold that the Insurer having established that the driver was not `duly licenced to drive the truck in question and also having established want of care on the part of the insured in allowing the insured truck to be driven by a driver who possessed only a LMV (Private) licence, on paying the compensation amount to the Appellants/Claimants and recover the same from the Insured (Respondent No.1)."

9. Despite noticing the fact that the appeal was by the claimants, the High Court took into consideration the contention raised by the respondent No.3 that no documentary evidence having been produced to establish the income of the deceased, it should b