Rasool Khan and Another vs Jagdish Singh Sikarwar and Others

S.S. Jha, J.—This appeal is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation. Deceased Rahees Khan was aged about 19 years and was unmarried. He died in an accident on 19th June, 1995 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. M.P. 07H 3550. Claimants submitted that income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- per day i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per month. Evidence to that effect is led by claimants. A.W. -1 Kallo Bai has deposed that deceased was involved in denting and painting of the vehicle and was earning Rs. 100/- per day and on first day of every month he was getting Rs. 3,000/- towards the salary. This witness has been cross-examined and in the cross-examination there was no question regarding the income of the deceased. Similarly, A.W. 2 Gulab Khan has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. A.W. 3 has also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.

Claims Tribunal has determined the income by holding that the deceased used to earn twenty-five days in a month. We are unable to agree with the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal which is contrary to evidence oil record. In the light of definite evidence by claimants, in the absence of any suggestion or evidence on record the Tribunal erred in holding that deceased was earning 25 days in a month, we hold that the income of deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month and since the claimants are the parents of the deceased and considering the future uncertainties such as marriage of deceased and raising family by him, dependency of parents is determined at Rs. 1,000/- per month and annual income is determined at Rs. 12,000/- per year. At the time of the death of the deceased, age of parents was between 38 and 40 years, therefore, multiplier of 16 is applied to this figure and compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000/-. To this amount, further sum of Rs. 18,000/- for damages under various heads-such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. are added and it is held that appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/-. Over and above this, appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of award.

Counsel for appellants further submitted that Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated on the findings that driver was not having a valid licence. Owner has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. with licence of the driver. Insurance Company was asked to verify the licence. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that a copy of licence filed by the appellants has been verified and licence has been found to be valid. The application is allowed and licence is taken on record. Since Insurance Company had admitted that licence is valid we hold that driver of vehicle was having valid licence.

In the said facts of the case, findings of Claims Tribunal that driver was driving the vehicle on a fake licence is set aside. Counsel for Insurance Company further submitted that since wrong number of licence was furnished, therefore, Insurance Company verified wrong licence and submitted that licence is not valid, therefore, liability of Insurance Company towards interest be exonerated. Even if, driver is not having valid licence, then also Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claimants. If Insurance Company is able to demonstrate that the vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of policy, then Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.

As discussed above, we hold that owner, driver and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Appeal succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs.