1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur and others. vs. Jogendra Singh and others. Date : 16.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.SL Jain, for the appellants. None present for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant as nobody appeared for the respondents despite service. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in MACT Case No.25/1991 committed error of fact and law by exonerating the respondent insurance company from the liability under the award dated 18.11.2000. The insurance company has been exonerated on the ground that the license of the driver, copy of which has been produced by the claimants, is fake license. 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that copy of license has been produced and that was examined by the insurance company through their persons as per the case of the respondent insurance company but the insurance company failed to prove the fact that the license in question was fake. They got the license examined through their officer Sriniwas Mishra and according to the insurance company, said Sriniwas Mishra obtained certificate Ex.A/3 from the office of Regional Transport Officer, Cuttack which is dated 24.10.1991. The said certificate purports to say that no such driving license no.A55706/86 valid upto 16.8.1991 for the driver Jogendra Singh s/o Kapoor Singh was issued by the transport office, Cuttack and, therefore, the said license is fake and forged one. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even after taking this plea, the respondent insurance company did not produce the surveyor nor it has been show how the Ex.A/3 reached the insurance company's branch from the office of RTO, Cuttack. It is also submitted that the insurance company produced the officer of Transport Office, Cuttack who is S.N. Jena who in his statement stated that he cannot say with 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. surety whether the license in question was issued by their office or not ? He also stated in his examination in chief that he does not know about the letter Ex.A/3 which has been relied upon by the Tribunal as well as set up by the insurance company. In view of the above, to prove the fact that the license was fake one, there is virtually no evidence. It is also submitted that from the copy of license, it is clear that it bears the seal of the office from where the license was issued. It is also submitted that the evidence of other witness Rakesh Kumar Jain of insurer is of no value because neither he is investigator nor he could explain how the office of the insurance company, where the vehicle was insured, received the letter Ex.A/3. In view of the above reason, the Tribunal's reasoning that the driver's license was fake one appears to be based on mere assumptions. It is also submitted that the insurer has not proved the fact that the license was of such type which could not have been believed by the owner of the vehicle before he could have handed over the vehicle to the driver Jogendra Singh and, therefore, there is no breach of the conditions of the policy. 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the reasons given by the Tribunal in its award dated 18.11.2000 as well as the statements of insurer's witness Rakesh Kumar Jain, S.N. Jena, officer from the transport office of Cuttack whose statement was recorded on commission. The claimants produced the copy of license of driver. On the basis of said copy of license original of which could have been in possession of the driver only, the respondent insurance company investigated the matter. The investigating officer has not been produced by the insurance company. The transport officer, who was produced by the insurer as their witness has not supported the insurance company, who clearly stated that he cannot tell anything about letter Ex.A/3 by which it has been conveyed that the license in question is fake one. He also stated that he is not sure whether the letter was issued by his office or not. He also stated that he has never enquired about Ex.A/3 communication conveying license to be fake. In view of the above reason, letter Ex.A/3 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. itself does not stand proved in any manner rather say became doubtful document. Insurer's other witness Rakesh Kumar had no personal knowledge about the license nor about the letter Ex.A/3. In view of the above, the Tribunal committed serious error in relying upon the said document merely on the basis that the said document has been given in discharge of official duty particularly when the officer of the department himself say that he cannot say that the said document was issued or not ? The burden was upon the insurance company to prove the license to be fake which has not been discharged by the company. In view of the above reason, the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.3 is set aside and it is held that the driver of the vehicle had driving license to drive the vehicle in question and that was valid driving license and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, the deceased was of the age of 45 years and his income was assessed to be Rs.3,000/- per 6 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. month and 1/3rd has been deducted which the deceased would have incurred on himself. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased being a young person of 45 years of age, the multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied whereas even as per the Schedule appended to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 15 is provided. The deceased was the driver of heavy vehicle and looking to his age, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Therefore, the compensation applying multiplier of 15 comes to Rs.3,60,000/- on account of loss of income to the claimants who are his wife, 3 daughters and 1 son. Rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is kept as it is. In view of the above finding, there is increase of Rs.1,36,000/- in the total award. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of claim petition. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. 7 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.234/2001 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Jogendra Singh & Ors. S.Phophaliya