In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 4359 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 04, 2009 United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellants Vs. Mool Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J The appellant-respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal for setting aside the award dated 4.6.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby the respondents- claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle, scooter, car and jeep, whereas, he was driving auto rickshaw at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the person having a driving licence of motor cycle/scooter/car/jeep could not drive the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha 2008 (4) Law Herald (SC) 2586, wherein it was observed that when a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the respondent No.1 was authorised to drive motor cycle/scooter/car/jeep. It could be taken that the car and jeep are the passenger vehicles. Similarly, auto rickshaw is also a passenger vehicle, therefore, there is no bar for the respondent to drive auto rickshaw which is a lighter vehicle than that of jeep and car. As such, the objection raised by the Insurance Company is over-ruled and the findings F.A.O. No. 4359 of 2009 -2- *** returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 are affirmed. Second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the deceased was 20 years old unmarried boy, but the Tribunal while assessing his income as Rs.3000/- and after making usual deductions of 1/3rd towards his own dependency assessed the income of Rs.2000/- per month, whereas, in the case of unmarried son, the deduction should have been made to the extent of ½ and the Tribunal would have also examined the age of the parents of the deceased. In this case, the deceased was young man of 20 years and was likely to be married within a year or so. In any case, the parents of the deceased were not of old age but in forties only. It may further be observed that after his marriage, his own dependency should have been reduced to 1/3rd. As such, the deduction of 1/3rd was not unreasonable or inappropriate in this case. The Tribunal appears to have applied appropriate multiplier while keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as of his parents. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge