IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO 90 of 2004. Decided on September 13, 2010 New India Assurance Co. …Appellant. Versus Bimla Devi & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Sh. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Himmat Negi, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is directed against the award dated 1.7.2003 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharamsala, whereby compensation for the death of one Sudarshan Singh, has been awarded and the appellant, with whom the offending vehicle, i.e. a truck, was insured, has been ordered to pay compensation money. 2. Award has been challenged on the following grounds: Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - “a) That the award of the learned Tribunal below is against law and facts of the case and is liable to be set aside. (b) That the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive and not at all in consonance with the well settled principles of grant of compensation. The learned MACT has gravely erred in granting an amount higher than the amount claimed by the claimants in their claim petition. (c ) That the learned Tribunal below has gravely erred in awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the claimants on account of conventional damages, which are on the higher side. (d) That the learned Tribunal has gravely erred by taking into account the future prospects of the deceased without any cogent evidence on record. The witness, who proved the salary of the deceased, had not stated even a single word about the promotion avenues or the salary, which the deceased would have drawn in future, if he had been promoted. Thus without any proper evidence on record, the learned MACT has assessed the income from future promotional avenues of the deceased on surmises and conjectures. - 3 - (e) That the learned Tribunal has also gravely erred in taking the dependency without taking into account the entire evidence available on record. (f ) That the learned MACT has also erred while applying multiplier of 15, which is on the higher side. (g) That the entire approach of the learned Tribunal is erroneous. The tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act have to award just compensation and it is well settled law that the compensation should not be in the nature of a windfall to the claimants.” 3. It is conceded by learned counsel representing the appellant that application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, moved by the appellant, had been rejected and, therefore, none of the aforesaid grounds is available to the appellant. However, it is stated that there is an application for raising additional grounds, i.e. CMP 826 of 2009. It is stated that appellant had taken a specific plea before the Tribunal that the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, at the time when the accident took place, and that an application had also been moved before the Tribunal under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, directing the insured and the driver, both of whom had been made party to the petition, to produce the driving licence and certain other - 4 - papers and that no order was passed by the Tribunal on that application. 4. Driver himself appeared as a witness before the Tribunal as RW-1. He testified, on being cross examined by the counsel for the appellant, that he had a valid licence, the number of which was 3289 and that the licence had been issued by S.D.M., Karsog. He also testified that licence had been endorsed for Heavy Transport Vehicle, i.e. truck on 17.7.1998 and it had been renewed from 19.12.1998 to 18.12.2001. Date of the accident is 22.1.2001. That means, accident took place during the validity of the licence, per testimony of RW-1 Harnam Singh. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement of the driver of truck, plea raised on behalf of the appellant that Tribunal did not pass any order on the application for production of driving licence, becomes meaningless. When the driver was himself in the witness box and he was cross examined by the appellant with regard to the driving licence, it ought to have asked the driver to produce the licence and in any case when he had given the particulars of the licence, record from the Licence Issuing Authority, i.e. S.D.M., Karsog, should have been summoned and proved. - 5 - 6. For the fore going reasons, appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed. September 13, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.