JUDGMENT
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 6.2.2006 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 66 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal by the said impugned award awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 3,21,500 and held that the owner and insurance company are liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
2. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, raised an objection before Claims Tribunal that original driving licence issued in favour of the driver was fake and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The said objection was rejected by the impugned award dated 6.2.2006 and, therefore, after receipt of notice of the memo of appeal, insurance company filed the cross-objection in this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.7.2003 a truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0724 was driven by Major Singh. He was driving the truck and going via Nashik to Mumbai, suddenly front side lyre of driver side bursted, due to which driver of the truck lost his control and dashed it with another truck bearing registration No. MH 30-A 9237. The driver Major Singh who was driving the truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0724 sustained grievous injuries and during his treatment died at Civil Hospital, Shahpur.
4. Appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Major Singh filed a claim petition claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 19,40,000 on the ground that the deceased was working as a driver and his monthly salary was Rs. 3,000 plus diet allowances. Daljeet Kaur, AW 1, widow of the deceased Major Singh in her statement stated that at the time of death the deceased was 35 years of age and he was getting salary at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month. The salary certificate, Exh. P12, was duly proved by respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 1 in the claim petition shown her age as 33 years. Her age was shown on 13.5.2003 as 34 years. She in her cross-examination also admitted that no document was filed in respect of age of her husband. Claims Tribunal also found that the mother of the deceased is 73 years of age, as per affidavit filed by her and, therefore, considering the age of the mother of the deceased as well as the age of the appellant No. 1 held that the deceased was not less than 45 years of age at the time of his death. In post-mortem report, Exh. P7, the age of the deceased is shown as 40 years. Considering the above, the Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of his death. The Claims Tribunal in respect of income of the deceased on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 36,000 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses the annual dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 24,000 and on applying the multiplier of 13 the compensation comes to Rs. 3,12,000. The Claims Tribunal also awarded Rs. 9,500 towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 3,21,500 was awarded towards compensation to the claimants.
5. The age of Daljeet Kaur, AW 1, is 33 years and in the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years. Considering the above, it can be safely held that the deceased was 40 years of age and as such as per Second Schedule framed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable and on applying the multiplier of 15 (i.e., Rs. 24,000 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000) the compensation is determined at Rs. 3,60,000. Appellants will be entitled further sum of Rs. 9,500 towards damages under various heads such as loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the total compensation is determined at Rs. 3,69,500 (rupees three lakh sixty-nine thousand five hundred). Claimants will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal.
6. Now the question is whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured?
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company has submitted that the original driving licence issued by the R.T.O. Authority, Guwahati, Assam is fake and the said fake licence was renewed from time to time by the Gwalior Transport Authority. The insurance company in his written statement raised a plea that the original licence was fake and he also appointed investigator to verify the said facts. The investigator had written a letter to the District Transport Officer, Kamrup (W/Z), Guwahati regarding genuineness of driving licence. The said authority after examining the licence No. M-43514/84/Guwahati gave an endorsement in the letter dated 4.8.2004, Exh. D1 that the original licence was not issued from the said authority and, therefore, the original driving licence is forged driving licence.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that insurance company failed to examine Road Transport Authority who had issued the original driving licence in the year 1984 and, therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the appellants does not dispute the fact that the licensing authority itself has made an endorsement in Exh. D1 to the effect that no such licence was issued nor it exists in the record of the Licensing Authority and, therefore, such certificate is admissible in evidence as a public document under Section 74 (1) (iii) of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mulayam Bai , in which it has been held that the certificate is the record of the act done by the public officer, who has found, after examining itself its own record that the licence does not exist. This can be proved by producing the original certificate in the court. This Court has held that the certificate issued by licensing authority is a public document and admissible in evidence without examining someone from the authority. Learned Counsel for the insurance company also drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla , in which the Apex Court held that what was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery and held that if fake licence was renewed after the accident the renewal cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence and, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay to the third party, but they can recover from the insured the amount so paid to the third party. Thus, the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of being driven by the person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for appellants drew my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Deshmukh and submitted that the certificate is required to be proved by examining the concerned official, otherwise it would not be admissible in evidence. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , in which the owner of vehicle has not only seen and examined driving licence produced by driver but also took test of driving of driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle. Thus, the owner satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) and the insurance company would not then be absolved of its liability.
10. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannibai , the insurance company had neither pleaded in its written statement nor proved by examining any employee of R.T.O. that licence of the driver was fake. Here in the present case, due to accident occurred on 27.7.2003 the driver Major Singh who was driving truck No. MP 07-G 0724 died in the said accident and no written statement was filed by the owner of the vehicle before the Claims Tribunal. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, in para B of its additional pleadings taken the plea that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence, thereafter he investigated the matter through its authorised investigator who submitted its report. The insurance company also examined Ajay Rawat, NAW 1 to prove the fact that the original licence issued in favour of the driver from R.T.O., Guwahati is a fake licence.
11. In view of the above the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla (supra) will be fully applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of vehicle being driven by person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the cross-objections filed by the insurance company is partly allowed for the reasons assigned above.
12. Award dated 6.2.2006 is modified and appeal filed by the appellant as well as cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 is allowed in part. Amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,21,500 to Rs. 3,69,500 along with interest as indicated above and the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 is allowed to the extent that insurance company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
In the result, the appeal and cross-objections filed by the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are partly allowed and modified to the extent indicated herein-above, but without any order as to costs.