SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 11.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RajeshShah,for the appellant. Mr.Vijay Purohit, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the award dated 24.7.2007 and according to the appellant less compensation has been awarded and further the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated from payment of the compensation. The victim Heera died in the accident occurred on 9th June, 2005 by the Jeep No.RJ24-T-0781. The driver of the jeep was respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 was the owner of the vehicle and the respondent no.3 is the Insurance Company who insured the vehicle of the respondent no.2. So far as the finding of the tribunal recorded in award dated 24.7.2007 that the respondent SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 2 no.1 caused the accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently is concerned, that is not under challenge. Owner admitted the ownership of the vehicle and nobody has disputed covering the risk of the owner and the jeep by the respondent no.3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 to oppose this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that so far as issue no.5 is concerned, that has been decided in favour of the appellant and the tribunal held that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from payment of compensation because of the allegation that the vehicle had no valid permit or it has been transferred etc. This finding is not under challenge and could not have been challenged as has been recorded correctly by the tribunal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal committed error of law by holding that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant could not SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 3 have produced any evidence and the burden was upon the owner of the vehicle as well as on the driver to prove that driver had valid driving license at the time of accident. The Insurance Company also has not produced any evidence to prove that driver had no valid driving license. The tribunal relied upon the notice given by the respondent Insurance Company to the owner and the driver of the vehicle for production of the driving license. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that less compensation has been awarded to the claimant. The deceased was of the age of 50 years and he had income of Rs.50,000/- per annum. The tribunal has assessed the income of victim as Rs.30,000/- only and deducted 1/3rd of the amount, which victim could have incurred for himself, but has not considered the future aspects of income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the low compensation has been awarded to the claimant on account of loss of consortium, love and affection of her husband. Learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 and 2 submitted that there is no merit in the appeal even if it has SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 4 been decided without evidence of the respondents nos.1 and 2. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as driving license is concerned, the respondent driver and owner could have proved the fact of having driving license with the driver. The tribunal relied upon the actof the respondent Insurance Company who gave notice to the respondents nos.1 and 2 for producing the copy of the driving license or the driving license. Admittedly, driving license has not been produced by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 nor the police could recover the driving license of the respondent no.1. The challan was filed against the driver of the vehicle for not possessing the driving license. In view of the above facts, if the inference was drawn by the tribunal that the driver had no valid driving license at the time of committing accident by the vehicle then the tribunal has not committed any illegality. The permit is different thing than the driving license. Even if on account of plea based on valid permit of the vehicle, the tribunal has SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 5 decided the issue in favour of the appellant- claimant even then on account of decision given on independent fact about the valid driving license, the Insurance Company could have been exonerated by the tribunal. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order so far as exonerating the respondent Insurance Company is concerned. The compensation awarded to the claimant is based on the assessment of income. The appellant in her statement stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- per annum. The statement in itself is vague about the income of the deceased. Source of income of the deceased was agricultural and keeping the cattle. In view of the above if the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum, I do not find that the tribunal has committed any illegality. In totality, the total amount awarded to the claimant is Rs.2,46,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. I do not find that the award is low in the facts of this case when the proper multiplier has been applied by the tribunal. SBCMA No.2322/2007 Smt. Shopu Devi Vs. Sidharam @ Shaitan Ram & Ors. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal committed error of law by directing deposit of the amount in the fixed deposit and the same will be extended to 9 years, is absolutely unjust because of the reason that the appellant can take care of her own money. The deposit of amount for such a long period of 9 years cannot be justified in the facts of this case because the appellant can take care of her money. Therefore, it will be appropriate that the total period of fixed deposit may be 4 years and, therefore, it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of fixed deposit after 4 years from the date of the award. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-