JUDGMENT
B. Panigrahi, J.
1. These two appeals, one at the instance of the Insurance Company and the other by the claimants arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 384/1990, directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- including a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, to claimant-respondents 1 to 3.
2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the widow and claimant-respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of deceased Pramod Kumar Bhuyan, who died on 28.3.1990 at 8.30 p.m. while he was coming by a cycle when the Dumper bearing registration number WBI 5673 belonging to the owner-respondent No. 4 knocked down the deceased from front side resulting his death. The claimants filed claim application claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The owner did not appear and the Insurance Company contested the case by filing a written statement generally denying the allegations made in the claim application. The Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and after framing issues, determined the compensation at Rs. 1,01,000/- and further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to claimant No. 1, the widow, towards loss of the consortium and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-.
3. The main challenge by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal is not justified in holding that the onus is on the Insurance Company to show that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence. After carefully considering the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, I do not find any merit in such contention of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company could have summoned the driver for examination before the Tribunal. Even if it is assumed that the driver had no valid driving licence and as such the owner was liable, keeping in view the provisions of Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and can claim reimbursement from the owner. This view is supported by the decision of this Court , Chenna Jyothirmayi and Ors. v. Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and Ors. wherein it has been held:
2. …Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates the circumstances under which the Insurance Company can claim exemption from liability. Under Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, lack of driving licence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is considered to be a ground for exempting the Insurance Company from its liability. However, Section 149(4) contemplates that even in a case where there is no valid driving licence, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter claim reimbursement from the owner. This position has been clarified by this Court in several decisions including the decision reported in 2001 (1) Orissa LR 497 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashinath Bank. In such view of the matter, the question as to whether there is valid driving licence or not being essentially a question between the owner and the Insurance Company, it is not necessary for the claimants to prove the existence of valid driving licence. The claimants can always rely on the provisions of Section 149(4) and seek compensation from the Insurance Company subject, of course, to the rider that in such a case the Insurance Company can claim reimbursement from the owner….
In the above premises, the Misc. Appeal No. 890/1996 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
4. Now coming to the appeal filed by the claimants (Misc. Appeal No. 53/ 1997), on going through the judgment/award passed by the Claims Tribunal, I do not find any justification to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. It has been contended on behalf of the claimants that since the deceased was the only bread-earner of the family and he prematurely died, the award of Rs. 5,000/- to claimant respondent No. 1 the widow, towards loss of consortium is quite low and at least Rs. 20,000/- should have been given on this head. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has repelled the said contention by stating that assessment of loss of consortium cannot be made in money value and in the absence of any further statistics before this Court, the amount need not be increased. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both parties, I find that the amount Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Claims Tribunal is too meagre to console the respondents. I, therefore, raise it to Rs. 10,000/- on humanitarian ground since the claimants have lost the victim who was the only bread-earner of the family. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and cost, as directed by the Claims Tribunal before the Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this order. Out of the said deposit, Rs. 26,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the deceased jointly and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of the interest portion shall be paid to the claimant-widow and the rest amount shall be kept in an unencumberable fixed deposit in any nationalised Bank in the name of claimant-widow for a period of ten years with liberty to withdraw monthly interest, Misc. Appeal No. 53/1997 is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.