H.S.BHALLA, J. MACA NOS.59 & 96 OF 2009 (Decided on 19.04.2011) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. …. ….Appellant. .Vrs. BANOJ MANJARI MAHANTA & ANR. …….Respondents. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (ACT NO.59 OF 1988) – S.168. For Appellant – M/s. A.K.Mohanty, & Associates. For Respondents – M/s. R.C.Behera & Associates (for Res. Nos. 1 to 3) H.S.BHALLA, J. Both the appeals arise out of the award dated 18th November, 2008 passed by the 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Talcher (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.Case No.58 of 2007. In M.A.C.A. No.59 of 2009 the Insurance Company has prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal whereas in M.A.C.A. No.96 of 2009 the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount. Since both the appeals arise of the common order, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since the prayer made by the claimants in MACA No.96 of 2009 is only with regard to enhancement of compensation, detailed facts are not required to be reproduced herein as they have been recapitulated in detail by the learned Tribunal in the award dated 24.2.2007. The operative portion of the impugned award runs as under:- “ The M.A.C. is allowed on contest against the opposite parties. The Opp.Party No.2 is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- within a month hence failing which the compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Out of the compensation amount of Rs.11,50,000/- a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- be deposited in the name of three petitioners in equal proportion, i.e. Rs.3,50.000/- each in any nationalized bank for a period of five years and the rest amount be paid in cash to the petitioner no.1”. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the claimants pointed out that the learned Tribunal fell in error by applying the multiplier of 13 as the deceased, who was working as a Lecturer in Political Science, was aged about 46 years at the time of accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the car in question was not validly insured and the accident did not take place due to rash driving of the driver of the offending car and the accident might have been taken place due to fault of the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. In order to prove these facts for the reasons best known to the company, no evidence has been adduced before the Tribunal. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection in the absence of any evidence put forward on behalf of the company. It was the duty of the Insurance Company to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The burden of proving this fact was on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. A specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. In order to escape the liability, the Insurance Company is not only required to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident but also to prove that the driver was disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence or that he never had any licence at all. The onus of proving that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence or disqualified of holding a licence is on the Insurance Company. It is settled law that whenever the Insurance Company pleads breach of conditions of the policy by pleading that the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that fact. The Insurance Company could have produced evidence to substantiate its allegations raised in its written reply. It is beyond doubt that the respondent no.1 (in MACA No.96 of 2009) was the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was duly insured. 6. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident and he was working as a Lecturer in Political Science in a college and was due to retire at the age of 58 years. Thereafter also, keeping in view the present trend, the retirement age was likely to be enhanced as it is being enhanced in other departments. Moreover, after attaining the age of superannuation, he could have even earned by way of doing tution work. Moreover, the average life expectancy can safely be fixed at 65-70 years and therefore, to my mind ends of justice would be met if the multiplier of 15 is applied. According, by taking the multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation deserves to be increased and in this manner, he shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,75,360/- (one lakh seventy five thousand three hundred sixty) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount within forty five days from the date of passing of this order and in case the same is not paid within the period mentioned above, then in that event the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the award till its realization. The statutory amount already deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded. 7. With the aforesaid modification of the award, the MACA No. 96 of 2009 is partly allowed and MACA No.59 of 2009 is dismissed. Appeal partly allowed. 2