Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent nos. 1 to 4, the claimants, are represented by Sri Vijay Prakash, Advocate, but he is not present, despite the case called in revised list. Despite the notice being sent by respondent to respondent no. 7 he has not put in appearance.
(2.) This is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 22.8.1996 by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. While deceased was standing on the side of the road on 5.9.1994, the Tanker, bearing registration no. URJ 6538, which was going to Ghaziabad, hit the deceased which caused death. The claim petition was filed by the claimants. Having regard to the age of the deceased and the income, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there will be a loss of income to the extent of Rs. 19,200/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded compensation at Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it could not be less than Rs. 50,000/-.
(3.) Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is nothing in Section 163 of the Act which provides minimum compensation at Rs. 50,000/-. Under Section 161 of the Act in case of death, the minimum amount of compensation prescribed is Rs. 25,000/-, in case of hit and run motor accident, which means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purposes. Therefore, Section 161 of the Act is not applicable. He further submitted that the owner has not filed the driving licence of the driver. The burden lies upon the owner of the vehicle to file the driving licence and prove that the driver possessed the valid driving licence on the date of accident. The Tribunal has erred in saying that the burden lies upon the Insurance Company to prove that the driver did not possess the driving licence. He further submitted that the matter is quite old and the entire amount Rs. 50,000/-, the amount of compensation has already been deposited and by the interim order dated 3.12.1996, 50% of amount has been released in favour of the claimants and 50% has been directed to deposit in a Nationalised Bank as fixed deposit. Let this Court may settle the issue and fix the reasonable amount of compensation which he suggested to be not more than Rs. 25,000/- and in this view of the matter 50% amount which is in fixed deposit may be returned to the appellant along with interest.;