M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) THREE appeals, SBCMA No. 1477/2003, 1481/2003 and 1496/2003 have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dt. 26.3.2003 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur in MACT Cases Nos. 182/98, 2/99, and 1/99 by which the claim petitions of the claimants were allowed and they have been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,57,400, Rs. 34,000 and Rs. 10,700/ -. SBCMA No. 963/2005 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of claim amount against the insurance company. Since the claim petitions were decided by a common award and hence all these appeals are also heard together and disposed together. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.98 at about 6.30 p.m. the driver of the mini bus No. RJ 05/P 572 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, with the result that the driver could not control it and the vehicle over turned near Chiksana, and the passengers received injuries. One of the passengers Balbir later died and other passengers Tikam Singh, Devendra Singh, Pritam Singh and Devaram sustained injuries. The heirs of the deceased Balbir i.e. Mithan and others filed claim petition No. 182/98 while the injured persons Tikam Singh, Devendra Singh, Pritam Singh and Devaram filed claim petitions bearing No. 184/98, 183/98, 1/99 and 2/99. Non -applicant No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle while non -applicant No. 2 is the driver and the vehicle was insured with the non -applicant No. 3. The non -applicant No. 1 has denied the allegations of the claim petition and has also denied that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Non -applicant No. 2 has not filed any reply to the claim petitions. Non -applicant No. 3 has also denied the allegations of the claim petitions and has further stated that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license and the vehicle was plying without permit and fitness certificate, and further that the vehicle was purchased by the non -applicant No. 1 on 19.3.98 but its information was not given to the insurance company and the name of the applicant No. 1 was not entered in the policy. The liability of the Insurance Company has been denied. The MACT consolidated all the aforesaid five claim petitions and tried and decided them together. The MACT framed five issues. Seven witnesses were examined from the side of the claimants while two witnesses were examined from, the side of the non -applicant No. 3. No witness was examined from the side of the non -applicants 1 and 2 The MACT decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and the claimants were awarded the compensation as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the award passed by the MACT is erroneous on facts and law and is liable to be set aside. From the evidence the Insurance Company proved that the vehicle was insured as a passengers commercial vehicle and that the driver was having a license to drive Light Motor Vehicle only i.e. he was not having a license to drive passengers commercial vehicle. The MACT decided the issue No. 3 regarding driving license against the non -applicant insurance company only on the ground that the driver was not dis -qualified from holding driving license for passengers commercial vehicle. No intimation regarding vehicle being sold to Rakesh on 19.3.98 was given to the Insurance Company. On the date of the accident the policy was in the name of Lekhraj Singh while the non -applicant Rakesh was the registered owner. The vehicle owner committed the breach of policy conditions, the MACT ought to have exempted the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the award passed by the MACT is based on evidence produced by the parties and after appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the MACT passed the award awarding compensation to the claimants. It was further argued that the deceased was earning Rs. 150 -200 per day being a mechanic and his monthly income was Rs. 4500/ - per month and after deduction of expenses the" multiplier of 17 should have been applied to the income of Rs. 3300/ - after deduction and in this manner the computation of income would be Rs. 6,73,200 but the MACT awarded only Rs. 2,30,000/ -. On the other heads also the MACT awarded meager amount and even a child was born after the death of the deceased, but no such compensation was awarded for him.;