The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Meera and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 15.11.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (''the Tribunal''), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,95,000/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents. The principal ground of attack in the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of effective and valid driving licence and on account of violation of policy condition, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation.

The Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 4 has came to a conclusion that though the appellant-Insurance Company had issued notices Ex. A/2 and Ex. A/3 to the driver and owner of the vehicle for production of the driving licence, however, as the said notices were issued after a passage of almost seven years from the date of accident and the same were returned unserved on account of incomplete address/addressee not available at given address. The same cannot lead to a conclusion that the owner and driver have failed to produce the driving licence and the Insurance Company has discharged its burden.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that besides the fact that the notice given to the owner and driver was not delivered the licence of the driver was not available in the police papers and therefore, the presumption, thus, arise that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence.

Mere non-availability of the driving licence in the records of the police papers cannot lead to a conclusion that the driver was not in possession of a driving licence. It is not the case of appellant-Insurance Company that an endorsement and/or note in the police record was that the driver was not having a driving licence.

In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the said issue does not call for any interference.

So far as challenge to award of compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has came to conclusion that deceased was aged 30 years and in the income tax return for the assessment year 2004-2005 his annual income was Rs. 65,330/-, Rs. 62,466/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 and Rs. 49,630/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 and has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- and after deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- after applying a multiplier of 18. It is submitted that the said multiplier of 18 is excessive and only multiplier of 17 should have been adopted. It is noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects and in that view of the matter, the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.