IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) Nos. 463 and 465 of 2005. Decided on September 22, 2010 Sukh Dev Singh …Appellant. Versus Ravinder Singh & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants Sh. J.R.Poswal, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2 Sh. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondent No. 4 Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) By this common judgment, two appeals, (particulars whereof are given in the heading of this judgment) are being disposed of, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them and also because both the matters arise out of the same accident. 2. Ravinder Singh and his daughter, Priti Thakur, respondents (hereinafter referred to as claimants) filed two separate petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for award of compensation, for the death of wife of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - respondent No. 1 and his male child, aged about 2 ½ years. It was alleged that when the wife of respondent Ravinder Singh, holding the child, was going to Community Health Centre, Harlog in District Bilaspur, a tanker, bearing registration No. PAT-2222, owned by appellant Sukh Dev Singh and driven by Jai Pal Singh (now dead) hit her, as a result of which, she fell down the road, alongwith the child and both of them died. Respondent, United India Insurance Company, was also impleaded in the capacity of insurer. Insurance Company denied its liability, on the ground that the man, who was driving the vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also there was no permit, for plying the tanker in the area, in which accident had taken place. 3. Learned Tribunal, after recording evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the tanker. However, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was not liable, as the driver was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence, nor was there a permit, authorizing the plying of tanker in that area. 4. Both the appeals have been filed by the owner of the tanker. He is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation assessed, as also by the order that he alone and not the insurer, is liable to satisfy the award. - 3 - 5. As regards the quantum of compensation for the death of the wife of claimant Ravinder Singh and mother of claimant Priti Thakur, learned Tribunal assessed the monetary loss @ Rs.1,500/- per month. The figure does not appear to be on the higher side. Compensation has been awarded by taking this figure, as monetary loss and applying multiplier of 15 years’ purchase, because the age of the deceased, was 27 years. With this age of the deceased, even a higher multiplier could have been applied and, therefore, compensation awarded, cannot be said to be on the higher side. 6. As regards the compensation, awarded for the death of minor son of respondent No. 1, monetary loss has been assumed to be @ Rs.1,000/- per month. The child was only 2 ½ years old. He was yet to be brought up and educated. A child faces various risks before he comes off age. Normally, in the case of children of this age, compensation is awarded, without assuming any income. Lump sum money is awarded, taking into consideration the social and economic status of the parents of the child as also uncertainties of life. In the present case, when the monetary loss, for the death of mother of the child, has been assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month, lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- should be reasonable. Therefore, appeal with regard to the quantum of compensation for the death of the - 4 - wife of claimant Ravinder Singh is dismissed, and with regard to the quantum of compensation, for the death of the child, is partly accepted, and the quantum of compensation is reduced to Rs.1,50,000/-. 7. As regards the liability for payment of compensation, finding of the Tribunal that vehicle was being driven in the area without route permit, cannot be sustained, because no such issue had been framed. Issue had been framed only with respect to objection that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle died during the pendency of the matter before the Accident Claims Tribunal. 8. Learned Tribunal has observed, that a notice under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, had been issued to the appellant, owner of the vehicle, to produce driving licence, but he did not produce the same and it is mainly for this reason, that finding has been returned that the vehicle was being driven by a person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and hence the Insurance Company is not liable. Such an inference ought not to have been drawn against the appellant, because licence, being with the driver, the appellant could not be expected to produce the same. 9. I find on record the statement of attorney of the owner of vehicle, i.e. appellant, per which he had ascertained - 5 - the particulars of the driving licence of the deceased driver. Insurance Company was supposed to have questioned him, to ascertain those particulars and then to have led evidence, after verifying the records, maintained by the Licensing Authority, on the basis of such particulars. This having not been done, both the cases are remitted to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for a limited purpose of re- determining the question of liability of Insurance Company, with the direction to re-summon the attorney of the appellant, who appeared as a witness, to enable the Insurance Company to ascertain the particulars of the driving licence from him and then to lead evidence, whether the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence or not, and thereafter to determine the issue of insurer’s liability to indemnify the insured afresh. While determining such a question afresh, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will not be swayed by the observations, appearing in the awards earlier passed by it, nor shall it take into consideration observations, made hereinabove. 8. Pending disposal of such question, compensation money, in both the cases, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal and in case it is finally held that the Insurance Company is not liable, it may recover the compensation money from the insured. Insurance - 6 - Company is given eight weeks time to deposit the compensation money with the Tribunal. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.11.2010. The Tribunal shall endeavour to determine the aforesaid question within six months, from the date, on which the parties have been directed to appear before it. September 22, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.