SHRI PRADEEP SHARMA SON OF SH. CHAMAN LAL, RESIDENT OF KULBHUSHAN BUILDING, NEW TOTU, SHIMLA-II (OWNER OF BUS NO. HP-07-4021) Vs. KUMARI ANUPAM D/O SH. DHARAM PAL THAKUR, RESIDENT OF ARAM KOTHI, H. NO. 2, BOILEAUGANJ, SHIMLA-5,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are arising out of the same accident. Before adverting to the facts, I must note that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been remiss in calculating the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. He takes the earning of the injured at Rs. 3000/ - per month and the annual dependency to be Rs. 36,000/ - and applying the multiplier of 18 thereby calculated the future loss of earning to be Rs. 8,64,000/ -. This is a mathematical error which should and ought to be corrected and it is directed that the loss of future earning is Rs. 6,48,000/ - and not Rs. 8,64,000/ -. The award is directed to be modified accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute this amount.

(2.) THE facts with respect to the accident and injury sustained are not disputed by the parties to this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner in FAO No. 456 of 2006 titled Pradeep Kumar Sharma versus Kumari Anupam and others submits that the liability, if any, is that of the Insurance Company. In FAO No. 6 of 2008, titled National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Kumari Anupam and others learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal could not issue pay and recover orders to the Insurance Company because of the fact that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms of the policy or in any event in contravention of the provisions of Section 149 (2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the liability, if any, is that of the owner The learned Tribunal on the facts fastened the liability on the owner on the ground that the driver of the bus did not possess a valid driving licence. This was based on the submission that the driver should and ought to be possessed of a "medium passenger driving licence". The learned Tribunal was in grave error as there is no such condition provided for under the provisions of the Act as applicable on the date of the accident. In fact, what the driver possessed was a licence for Light Motor Vehicle which he could ply as is evident from Ex.RW2/B certifying the vehicle to be a bus with gross weight of 6800 kilogram bringing it within the ambit of Section 2 (21) of the Act as a light motor vehicle. The licence in this case Ex.RW2/B has also been issued for LMV. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this case is clearly wrong and not sustainable and it is held accordingly. On the second aspect learned counsel Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of Section 149(2)(c). He submits that the vehicle was being plied without a valid route permit for the purpose other than that for which it was permitted. In other words, it did not have valid route permit. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Harnam Singh versus Oriental Insurance Company and others, FAO No. 548 of 2008 decided on 12.1.2012 holding:

(3.) THERE is no dispute on this proposition of law. But what I find from the evidence on record is that the vehicle in question was a bus and was having a valid route permit. The insurance company did not lead any evidence to show that the accidented vehicle did not possess any valid route permit. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sony Cheriyan, (1996) 6 SCC 451 the Court holds: