1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.502/1995 Smt.Sita Devi VS. Mst.Sugra & Ors. Date of order : 2.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the respondent Insurance Company Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit for Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the cross-objector claimant. BY THE COURT: This is a misc. appeal filed by owner of offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called “the Act”) against an award, dated 9.11.1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No.22/92 (129/88). 3. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimant filed under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,900/- to the claimant for the death of one Mohd.Hussain, who died in vehicular accident. However while passing the award, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any 2 driving license to drive any vehicle. So the award was passed only against owner and driver of the vehicle. It is against this award, the owner of vehicle has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 4. In substance therefore, two questions arise in this appeal filed by owner, first whether Tribunal was right in awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,00,900/- to claimant for the death of Mohd.Hussain and second whether Tribunal was right in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I find no merit in this appeal. In my view, both the questions need to be answered against the appellant by upholding the finding of Tribunal. 6. Coming to the first question, it is a case of death where one Mohd. Hussain aged around 32 years and engaged in the business of “Fishery” died in vehicular accident on 18.5.1988. The Tribunal assessed the dependency keeping in view deceased status, monthly income, age and nature of business etc. and considered just and proper to award a total sum of Rs.1,00,900/-. In my view, having taken note of evidence and on its proper appreciation, it seems to be on lower side and hence the cross objection of claimant filed for enhancement in this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. In fact having taken note of evidence, his yearly income should have been held to be Rs.12,000/- i.e. Rs.1000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 18, we get a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-. To this we add a sm of Rs.25,000/- towards consortium such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and estate etc. and accordingly, get a sum of Rs.1,44,000+Rs.25,000/-=Rs.1,69,000/-. It is this sum which in my opinion, the claimants are entitled to claim by way of 3 compensation for the death of Mohd.Hussain as a just and reasonable one on the basis of evidence adduced and not the one which was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. 7. In other words, the claimants are entitled to claim a total sum of Rs.1,69,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Mohd.Hussain. 8. In this view of the matter, the first question is answered against the appellant and in consequence the cross- objection filed by claimants (respondents) is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 9. Coming now to the next question as to whether Tribunal was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground of driver of offending vehicle not holding the license on the date of driving vehicle i.e. the date of accident. I am of the view that this finding of the Tribunal has to be upheld on facts and in the light of the law laid down in Swarn Singh case referred in 2004 ACJ (SC) 1. Indeed there is no evidence to hold that driver had the license on the date of accident. The Tribunal even without there being a law laid down on this issue had taken the same view which now find in conformity with the law laid down in Swarn Singh case. I therefore, answer the question No.2 also against the appellant. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed whereas cross-objection of respondents (claimants) is allowed in part as indicated above. The enhanced awarded sum would carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till realization. No cost. (A.M. SAPRE), J. /tarun/