B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) Instant miscellaneous appeals have been filed against the award dated 03.12.2014 passed by Sri Amitabh Kumar, learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.20 of 2013 in which a compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment, deducting the amount already paid within one month from the date of passing of this order with a liberty to recover the aforesaid amount of compensation from the owner of offending vehicle. Miscellaneous Appeal No.57 of 2015 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of award amount claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- on account of death of son of appellant nos.1 and 2 who died in accident and Miscellaneous Appeal No.103 of 2015 has been preferred by owner of vehicle to modify/set aside the claim and the finding of Court below regarding liberty to insurer to realize the award amount from the appellant.
(2.) The brief facts of case is that on 15.01.2013 when deceased Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Agarwal was returning to his house after performing his work on a bicycle, a truck bearing registration no. JH 02 Q-5151 dashed him and due to injuries he died on the spot.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Agarwal at the time of his death was 23 years as per birth certificate (Exhibit 5) and he was working as mason and was earning Rs.400/- per day and by his earnings he was maintaining his parents and minor sister. It is submitted that learned Tribunal erred in choosing the multiplier of 15 instead of 18 as the deceased was 23 years at the time of his death. Learned counsel further submitted that offending vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited under Policy No.0G-13-2406-1803-00000408 which was valid from 13.05.2012 to 12.05.2013 which covers the date of accident of 15.01.2013. It is further submitted that the driver Birendra Kumar Mehta was holding a valid driving license. The driving license issuing register has been called for from the office of D.T.O., Hazaribagh which has been marked as Exhibit-G in which it has been mentioned that commercial driving license of the driver was issued from the office of D.T.O. and was renewed till 25.11.2014. He further submitted that the claimants/appellants have examined four witnesses in support of their claim and the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.9000/- per month or Rs.400/- per day for which a certificate of income dated 09.12.2013 (Exhibit-6) issued by the concerned employer namely M/s Paswan Electrical Enterprises was proved by its proprietor Sri Basudev Paswan (A.W.-4). A.W.1- Ashok Kumar Agarwal has also deposed that his son was mason who was earning Rs.9000/- per month. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation in this case may be reassessed to Rs.30,17,000/-. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants/owner of vehicle appearing in Misc. Appeal No.103 of 2015 submitted that the Tribunal has fixed the liability merely on the ground of violation of driving license. He further submitted that there was no endorsement in the register that the driving license was cancelled or suspended so it was effective on the date of accident. He further submitted that as per Rule 28 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 no order of suspension of driving license was passed. It was also submitted that Insurance Company cannot absolved of his liability as the Insurance Company has to prove negligence of the owner that the driver had no valid license but he was entrusted by the owner to drive the vehicle without valid license. He relied in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat & Another Versus Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins & Others, 1985 2 ACC 34 (SC), Lal Chand Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2006 4 JLJR 173 (SC) as also in the case of Dilip Singh Versus Dulari & Another, 2006 ACJ 118. ;