- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ Award dated 16.03.2011 passed by Additional District Judge -cum - Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, F.T.C. 11, Bokaro in Motor Vehicle Claim Case no.32 of 2009.
(2.) SINCE learned counsel for the respondent -claimant nos. 1 to 5 have appeared, the appeal has been heard in presence of both the parties. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment/Award on three fold grounds: (i) the finding of learned Tribunal regarding validity of licence is based on no evidence and the judgment is perverse; (ii)learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the multiplicand to double the monthly salary and has also committed error in doubling the amount of salary in the light of the decision of this Court in Archana Jha Vrs. The Oriental 6/5/2014 Page 69 Krishna Baitha Versus State Of Jharkhand Insurance Company Ltd. [(2008)4 JLJR 567] and (iii) learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting of Rs.50,000/ - under the head of loss of consortium as against the fixed amount of Rs.5,000/ - as per the Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act '). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the facts and material on record and has given specific finding that the driving licence of the driver was seized in Purulia P.S. Case no.31/09(Exhibit -5)and that was a valid driving licence. The appellants have not adduced any contrary evidence on record. Learned Tribunal, has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence on the alleged date and time of accident in which the deceased died. Learned Tribunal has discussed the circumstances in detail under which the multiplier has been applied and the amount of salary has been fixed and has relied on the principle laid down in the case of Archana Jha(supra). There is no error or illegality in the said finding of learned Tribunal.
(3.) SO far as granting of compensation for loss of consortium is concerned, though Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act provides for the amount of Rs.5000/ -, the effect of the said schedule is diluted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Sarla Verma Vrs. Delhi Transport Corpn. & Ors."{2009(2)TAC 677(SC)};