Case: Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala &amp; Others

2. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘theYamunanagar at Jagadhri found that the insured did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal absolved the insurer for that reason. The insurer was, however, directed to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from the owner of the offending motor cycle. The High Court dealt with three appeals: one filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, a second by the insurance company and the third by the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle. The High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Swaran Singh, the Tribunalwas correct in directing the insurer to pay the compensation and to recover it from theof the offending vehicle. The present appeal has been filed by the owner and driver.The accident took place on 22 March 2010. The deceased Sunil Kumar was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration NoThe Tribunal found that the accident was caused as a result of the rash and negligent act of the appellant. This finding of fact has not been disturbed by the High Court. The deceased was employed as a sweeper in Haryana Roadways and was engaged on a salary of Rs 11,928 per month. The Tribunal allowed future prospects of 50%, the deceased being just short of 36 years of age. After deducting an amount representingof the earnings for personalied a multiplier of 15. The total compensation was computed at Rs 24,15,420 to which the Tribunal added an amount of Rs 20,000 under conventional heads.eld that the financial assistance which the heirs of the deceased would receive over a period of 12 years from the employee (amounting to Rs 16,16,112) would have to be deducted from the compensation. After making theded an amount of Rs. 8,19,500 together with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. The High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs 16,04,912.4. Special Leave Petition (C ) No 7737 of 2015 filed by the claimant, which was connected to this appeal, has been dismissed on 8 February 2018.

Court's reasoning:
8. In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a licence which was found to be fake. Another licence which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge.