IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 104 of 1990 Date of Decision: 9.12.2008 Shakuntla Devi @ Mohan Devi and others. ....... Appellants through Ms.Deepinder Kaur, Advocate. Versus Gurmukh Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri Inderjit Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an appeal directed against common award dated 4.11.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, `the Tribunal') passed in M.A.C.T. Nos. 202/1/70 and 203/2/71 of 1987-88. The appellants are the widow, three children and mother of Lachhman Ram, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 5.6.1987. He was about 30 years of age at that time and was running a Kariyana Shop. F.A.O.No.104 of 1990 -2- .... A claim petition was filed by the appellants for grant of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.450/- while treating him as unskilled labourer and fixed the dependency of the appellants at Rs.3600/- per annum. A multiplier of `20' was adopted to arrive at a figure of Rs.72,000/-, but a sum of Rs.68,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants after deducting a sum of Rs.4000/- on account of lump sum payment. Interest at the rate of 12-1/2% per annum was also allowed on the compensation amount from the date of application till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the compensation and interest was fastened upon the driver of the offending vehicle alone. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Tribunal and has prayed that the impugned award be modified on the question of quantum, as also on the question of fixing of liability to pay the compensation. On the other hand,learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the award of the Tribunal is correct and does not warrant any interference. I have thoughtfully considered the respective contentions and have perused the record. Concededly, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was said to be earning Rs.2000/- per month. However, his monthly income has been assessed as Rs.450/- by the Tribunal, which is grossly inadequate. A person, who is self-employed and is engaged in the business of sale of F.A.O.No.104 of 1990 -3- .... Kariyana articles, can be safely presumed to be earning Rs.1500/- per mon th, if not Rs.2000/-. In view of this, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1500/- per month. The deceased was having a large family consisting of himself, mother, three children and the widow. In this eventuality, the unit system should have been applied for assessing the dependency. Since total members of the family were six, the value of each unit comes to Rs.250/- keeping in view the income aforesaid. After giving the concession of two units per adult, the deceased is held to have been spending Rs.500/- on his personal expenses. Therefore, the dependency comes to Rs.1000/- per month,i.e. Rs.12000/- per annum. The multiplier of `18' is adopted as it is in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 which is a guiding factor. In this manner, the compensation works out to Rs.2,16,000/- (12000 X 18). An additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is allowed for funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. They shall also be entitled receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation on the amount of enhanced compensation. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has totally gone wrong in holding that only the driver is liable to do so. F.A.O.No.104 of 1990 -4- .... A perusal of the award shows that the owner of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex parte. It had even not cared to file written statement. There was no denial that the offending vehicle was owned by M/S Agro Chemical, Punjab Limited, Chandigarh and was fully insured. The driver of the offending vehicle was also proceeded ex parte. No driving licence was produced. The Insurance Company also did not make any effort to get the driving licence produced and verified. It was the duty of the Insurance Company to make efforts for the production of the driving licence in the wake of the fact that both the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle chose not to contest the claim petition. That having not been done, it is held that the Insurance Company has miserably failed to discharge its onus to prove the validity or invalidity of the driving licence. In this view of the matter, it can not escape its liability to pay the compensation to the appellants. On the basis of the above conclusion, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle shall be liable to the pay the compensation and interest to the appellants. However, it is given liberty to prove that the driving licence of the driver of the offending was fake or that he was not holding a valid driving licence, in separate proceedings and if it does so, it would have a right to recover the amount of compensation and interest from the owner of the offending vehicle, who was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal and who has not even put in appearance before this Court as well. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. However, before parting with the judgment, it is observed that F.A.O.No.104 of 1990 -5- .... the direction of the Tribunal to the appellants to furnish security of the amount equivalent to the amount of the compensation for release of the same is perverse. It is, therefore, that in case nothing has been paid to the claimants pursuant to the impugned award so far, the payment of the compensation as determined above along with interest shall be made as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 09,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge