I IT OF Cr tli-^ NCI SUNIL iiiinft, d, Ciaimants ivori-appiicanis fiisc. Jagvati, W7o Andharu, aged about 30 ysetiS Kuiey, S./o Junga, aged about 54 years Banjaru, 'W./b Kuley aged aboyt 52 V; sru, ased about 10 3 4 Sannu, S/o vsars 5 Ku Sanvati, D/o Andharu, aged about 8 yeare Ku Sonvati, D/o Andharu, a.ged about 6 years a< 7 Mukesh, S/o ; months Mother Jagvati, widow of Andharu, sged about 30 years, next friend for liant No.4 -7 All R/o Viliage Paina Thana- Pharasgaon, The Kondagao.n, | Distt Jaidev Pandey, S/o Sukaiuram Pandey, R/o Vil! Rs^6srli^Hc'~s3r :V{ Pharansgaon, Tehs!) - Kondagaon, Distt Bastar (CG) Vehicle DriyeF & Natlonat insurance Post Office, Jagdalpur, 'i Shri Vimiesh Bajpal, counsel for t'ne appeiiants. None for respondent No.1 thoush served. Shri Sreekumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate v/ith Shrl Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. v i'- The foilowina order of the Court was passed bv This is ciaimants' appeai for enhancement of . the compensatlon avv'arded by the Motor Accident CSaims TriDunai Bastar at 02.09.; Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated S, passed In Cialm Case No.327/2000. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.T9,50,000/'- ciaimed by the appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate widovv, parents and children of deceased Andharu by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 29.07.2000 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11 .Q7.2000, the Tribunai awarded 3 totai sum of Rs.1,09.200/- as compensation alonQ with interest @) 9% per annum from the date of the ifijing of the claim petition tili the date of actuai payment. 3) The Trlbunal on s close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Andharu died on 29.07.2000 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.07.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent 1 -I 111, ^' drivina of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata 407 bearina recsistration No.MP-25/7842:. as the above offending vehicle Tata 407 on the date of the accident though was Insured with the National Insurance Company Llmited, the driver at the reievant time was not holdina a valid drivina licence, the Insurance Company was not iiabie. to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was of the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicie. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30/- per day and Rs.720/- per month assuming that he was gstting work only for 24 days in amonth. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.720/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, ihe ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.480/- per month and Rs.5,760/'- per annum, which was rounded off to Rs.5,800/-. By multiplyin.q the annuai dependency of Rs.5,800/- wlth the muitipiier of 14, the compensation was worked out to Rs.81,200/-. By wardin.q further sum of Rs.28,000/- under other heads; the ~T'ribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,09,200/- as compensatipn to t'ne claimants for th'e death of deceased Andhsru in the ^mbtor accldent. The above amount of compensatlon was payabie hythe owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicie Tata 407. The Tribt.inal further dlrected pavment of interest on the above amounf of compensation of Rs.1,09,200/- @ 9% per annum from the.date of the fiiing ofthe claim petition tillthe date of actuai payment. 5) Shri V/imlesh Bajpai, iearnedcounsel for the appe submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting ants the 4 ^. ciaimants' e'/idence about the income of the deceased and In assessing his income at Rs.720/- per month only; in selecting the lovtfer multipiier of 14; and In av/arding Ipw compensation of Rs,1,09,200,'-only. 3) Shri Sreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsei for respondent No.2 tne Nationai Insurance Company Limited the av/ard and contended that as the driver of the offending vehicle Tata 407 on the date of the accident was not h.oldlng a vaiid driving licen.se, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Nationai Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicie from its iiabiliiyto pay compensation to the claimants. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal ieading to the exoneration of the insurer of the offendin.q vehicie Tata 407 from its liabiltty to pay compensation to the ciaimants is concernea, It is ipparent from the evidence IAlAf/1 Javdev Pandev and NAW/2 BR Netam that the drivina license of the owner-cum-driver 01 iina vehicle Tata 407 expired on 31.12.1999; tl' accident occurred on 11 .07.2000; and the driving iicense of ths owner-cum-driver thereafter was a.ot renewed from 01.09.2000. As such, on the dats le accident i.e. 11.07.2000, the owner-Gum-driver ofthe offendina vehicle Tata 407 was not hoidlng a valid driving iicense. As the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicie Tata 407 was drivina the offendina vehicle on 1 1107.2000. ;•'• wlthout any valid driving license, the same amounts to breach of the policy conditions. The insurer of the offending| vehicie Tata 407, therefore, has been rightly exoneratsd by the|Tribunal from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the Tribunal rlghtly held the ovtfner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle Tata 407 to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) Now, v/e shai! examine as to whether the compensation Rs.1,09,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Andharu used to earn Rs.100./- per day by working as Cooiie/Hamal/Porter in the T". uck, the evidence ied in that behalf was not of dinching:nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tilibuna! in discardins the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the dsceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.720/- per month in the year 2000 is certainiy on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Andharu was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident, v/e are of the opinion that he could have easiiy earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. 'We, therefore, propose to recompiate the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12) By deducting the usua! 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towsrds the personal expensesof the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/-perannum. |l | 1; ;1 :^tiLdi ^ 13) Consldering the age of the deceased, his widow, parents and children, we are of the opinion that muitipiier of 14 selscted by the Tribunal is apDropriate in the present case. 14) By multipiying the annual dapendency of Rs.16,000/- with the multip'iier of 14, the compensation vi'orks out to Rs.2,24,000/-. The claimants are Turt'ner entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral sxpenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the v./idow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum or' Rs.2,39,000/- as compensation for the desth of deceased Andhsru in the motor acciQent. 15) The cla'mants are furth.er awarded inte from the date of the fiilng of the ciaim petiti S% per annum il! the date of the actual payment on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,29,800/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! filed by the appeiiants/' ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. VVhile rnaintainina the Tribunal's findina in regard to the exoneration of th.e insurer of the offending vehtcie Tata 407 and uphoiding the tiability of owner-cum-driver of the offending vghicle to pay compensation to the ciaimants, the amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,09,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhancee to R.2,39,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensatian of Rs.1,2S,800/- shali carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition till the dateof actuai payment. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge