HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1657 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2000 dated 24-9-2002 awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Suman Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that in the night of 7-4-1999 T.Suman Kumar along with others was travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP16K-450 from Kodur to Chitvel and when the jeep reached near Gaddalarevupalli, the driver of the jeep drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the tractor bearing No.AP26B-2214 which was coming in the opposite direction, resulting in the death of T.Suman Kumar. Parents of the deceased filed the above MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation from the owner and insurer of the jeep and the owner of the tractor. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues. On behalf of claimants PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 marked while RW-1 was examined on behalf of respondents in OP and Exs.B-1 to B- 3 were marked. The Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence, dismissed MVOP as against the owner of the tractor and allowed MVOP granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition til realization by directing the owner and insurer of the jeep involved in the accident. Aggrieved thereby, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant – insurance company and learned counsel for the respondents – claimants and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as on the date of accident, there was no renewal of driving licence and therefore in the absence of valid driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimants contended that there must be pleading and proof that the owner had knowledge of invalid driving licence and insurance company has to adduce evidence that owner had knowledge of fake or expired licence. 5. PW-2 is an eye-witness to the accident. He stated that the deceased and himself were travelling in the jeep and the jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the tractor coming in the opposite direction and that he had also received injuries in the accident. Apart from this, Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of charge-sheet. Thus, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver particularly when the jeep driver was not examined. Having rgard to the above evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the jeep driver was responsible for the accident. 6. In regard to the invalid driving licence of the jeep driver, the insurance company cannot escape its liablity as the jeep driver was having driving licence upto 27-2-1998 but the same was not renewed and further, the owner of the jeep must have knowledge that the driver having fake or invalid driving licence, and as such, insurance company is also liable to pay compensation. 7. Coming to the determination of compensation, the deceased was aged 15 years as per Ex.A-2 post mortem certificate and the parents of the deceased claimed compensation. In such situation, the younger age of the parents has to be taken into account. The Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased being minor, at Rs.15,000/- and applied multiplier ‘15” appropriate to the 15 years age of the deceased, as per the Act and thus the total compensation was arrived at Rs.1,50,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, income fixed by the Tribunal as non-earning member as per the Act and multiplier applied, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 15-7-2010 bsc