KRISHAN LAL Vs. PREM KANTA CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAO No. 826 of 2012 is by the owner of the vehicle whose licence bore out that it had been issued on 12.8.1997 and valid upto 17.6.2009. The accident had taken place on 2.4.2010. The Tribunal observed that on the face of it the driver did not have an effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident and hence denied him the right of indemnity.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that in terms of Section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, if a person who obtains a licence had not attained the age of 50 years on the date of issue, renewal would be effective for a period of 20 years from the date of such issue or renewal or until the date on which such person attains the age of 50 years, whichever was earlier. In this case, if the licence had been issued on 12.8.1997 which was to be effective till 17.6.2009, there cannot be an augment by a licencee that the driving licence had been wrongly issued only upto 17.6.2009, but it should have been for a period beyond that date. If there was any error in the issue of licence that ought to have been a matter of correction before the authorities and it could be no argument before a Tribunal that although the licence was not shown to be valid on the face of it, the Tribunal must read the licence to be valid on the date of accident. The validity of a licence must be taken on what the licence states and it shall be impermissible for the courts to tinker with what the document shows by its own inferences. I cannot accept an argument that the issue of licence was wrongly made by the authorities to enure only upto 17.6.2009. The appellants ought to have at all times known that the licence that the driver possessed had its validity only upto 2009 and if he has not taken steps to re -submit the licence for renewal at appropriate time or secure what he thought he was entitled to, the insurance company shall be well within its right to contend that in terms of Section 149(2) of the Act, there had been breach of terms of the policy, where the person who was driving the vehicle was not duly licenced. I find no error in the award to make possible a right of indemnity for the driver of the motor cycle.

(3.) FAO No. 1553 of 2012 addresses the issue of quantum for the death of a male aged 60 years. The petition had been filed by the widow as well as her two sons who had become major. The deceased was said to be engaged in a business of giving out cycle -rickshaws on hire and making his living. He was said to be an income tax assessee and the tax return filed just before his death for two years revealed his income Rs. 86,000/ - and Rs. 93,500/ - respectively. There was evidence to the effect that sons were carrying on business of their father and that was to be duly factored for the contribution. His income was taken at Rs. 5,000/ - per month. The Tribunal made 1/3rd deduction and took the contribution to the family at Rs. 3333/ - and applied a multiplier of 9 and granted total compensation of Rs. 5,01,724/ -. It also provided for loss of consortium of Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 10,000/ -towards transportation and funeral expenses. I will re -work the compensation taking income at Rs. 90,000/ -, providing for 1/3rd deduction in the manner adopted by the Tribunal and take the yearly contribution at Rs. 60,000/ -, apply the multiplier of 9 and take the loss of dependence at Rs. 5,40,000/ -. I will provide for Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/ - towards funeral expenses. I tabulate the various heads of claim as under: -