CHANDESWAR CHAUDHARY Vs. VAIJ NATH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) a compensation of Rs. 2,60,500/- was awarded for the death of Sanjeev Kumar, a bachelor aged 151/2 years who was working as a helper with a private company. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal, however, held that the compensation can be awarded on the minimum wages of an unskilled worker which was Rs. 2,000/- per month on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal thus deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 2,56,000/-. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate. The Claims Tribunal further found that the driving licence held by the driver (Respondent No. 3) had expired on 03.05.2002; this accident took place on 11.07.2002 and the licence was renewed much thereafter on 26.12.2003. Thus, the Claims Tribunal opined that since the driver did not hold a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded. It, therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company and made the driver and the owner liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) There is twin challenge to the judgment. First, the compensation should have been awarded at least on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker of Rs. 2,667/-. Secondly, even if there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company was under obligation to perform its statutory liability vis--vis the third party. Thus, the Insurance Company should have been asked to pay the compensation and granted recovery rights if there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 supports the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 contends that since the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy was proved, the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated.