^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BL^E SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeal (C) No. 972 of 2010 Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants 1 Jairam Yadav s/o Murari, aged about 50 years, 2 Muniya Bai w/o Jairam, aged about 48 years, 3 Ramesh s/o Jairam aged about 16 years, (at the time of filing the claim application before the Tribunal, he is the minor, age of 16 years, and presented the claim application through his legal guardian Jairam s/o Murari) at present aged about 18 years. All are r/o. village Dev Tikra (Devgarh), police station Udaypur, tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS 1 Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma s/o Nansai Vishwakarma, aged about 30 years, r/o. J.M.Q. Colony, Ghopadpatti, Vishrampur, policestation Vishrampur, tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. (Driver of the offending vehicle) 2 Virendra Singh s/o Bhalle Ram, aged about 50 years, P.M.N. Transport, Vishrampur tahsil Surajpur,district Surguja C.G. (Owner of the offending vehicle) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Office, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. (Insurer ofthe offending vehicle) ^.' '^t..,. M.A.C. No. 972 of 2010 ^ Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 of Motor Vehicles Act ^;: Present : Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (20ln0ctober,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 18.08.2010, passed in Claim Case No.58/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,70,0007- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Sanjay Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 13.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sanjay Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 15-A/6455; ^^ ":"%, fe'AsSSto.. lj 'iw.^' ^••,^^ MAC.No. 972 of 2010 ^T though the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the Truck. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 18.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding furthersum of Rs.35,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sanjay Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.2,15,000/-only. 6) Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the .^" MAC.No. 972 of 2010 offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) So far as the Tribunal's finding leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants is concerned, it is apparent that the driving license of respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma, who admittedly was driving the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident expired on 02.02.2008 and it was got renewed only on 20.03.2008. Thus, it is apparent that on the date ofthe accident i.e. 13.03.2008 the driver of the Truck was not holding any driving license at all. As the time gap between the expiry of the driving license and the renewal is more than one month, the Tribunal has rightly held that the subsequent renewal will not validate the driving license retrospectively. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the Truck was not holding any driving license on the date of the accident and as such the insurer of the Truck was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the Truck. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. -<^^ MAC.No. 972 of 2010 ^ 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sanjay Kumar used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Khalasi and Rs.2,000/- per month from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing that the deceased had any agricultural land at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 10) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Sanjay Kumar was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . 11) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is also perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.NO. 972 of 2010 nlmmi 13) The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge