JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The claimants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated June 3, 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), Rohtak, by which the claimants were held entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,95,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the entire amount. The Tribunal held respondents No. l and 2, i.e. the driver and the owner of the three-wheeler which was the offending vehicle, to be responsible jointly and severally to pay the aforementioned compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on July 12, 2000, Bhoop Singh hired a three-wheeler bearing registration No. HR-46-A-7289 from Simli to transport his cement bags from village Maina. Satish-respondent No. 2, who was the driver of the three-wheeler was driving the three-wheeler rashly, negligently and at a high speed and when he came near the school of son of Mange Ram, the three-wheeler turned turtle. As a result, Bhoop Singh sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, but he was declared by the doctors as ‘brought dead’. An F.I.R. No. 208 dated July 12, 2000 under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C. was also registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak on the statement of one Hoshiar Singh, father of the deceased.
3. The claim petition has been filed by the widow, two minor sons and one minor daughter of the deceased Bhoop Singh. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation. It was averred by the claimants that the deceased Bhoop Singh was 35 years of age and was employed with Tyre Ghar and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/-. It was further averred that Bhoop Singh used to sell milk also.
4. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. The driver and owner of the three-wheeler filed writ-ten statement and pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Respondent No. 3, namely, National Insurance Company also filed a Separate written statement wherein it was averred that the driver and the owner of the insured three-wheeler were not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had a licence to drive a four-wheel vehicle and not a three-wheel vehicle, and hence the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with any liability.
5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the three-wheeler. It relied upon the statement of PW-Karambir, who stated that the three-wheeler was being driven by Satish at a very high speed due to which it over-turned. This witness further submitted that the deceased Bhoop Singh was pulled out from under the three-wheeler by him and some other villagers and that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled away from the place after the accident. This version of Karambir has been fully- supported by Ranbir-PW-5, who also stated that the three-wheeler was being driven rashly and negligently. PW-1, Rajesh Kumar, Additional Ahlmad in the Court of J.M.I.C. Rohtak deposed regarding the lodging of the F.I.R.
6. The defence took up the stand that it was one Rajesh who was driving the three-wheeler at the time of the accident and not Satish. However, they have not led any evidence to support their version.
7. In view of the above statement of the eye witnesses, namely, PW 4-Karambir and PW-5-Ranbir, I hold that the three-wheeler bearing registration No. HR-46-A-7289 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Satish-respondent No, 1.
8. Now, the question is whether the compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants is adequate and whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not?
9. A perusal of the statement of PW-2 -Varinder Singh, who was an employee of Tyre Ghar, Rohtak, shows that the deceased was working as a part time helper and was getting Rs. 2,000/- as his salary. Exhibit, P/2 is the certificate to prove the salary of Bhoop Singh. PW-3, Nirmala wife of the deceased Bhoop Singh, has although stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month but the statement of Varinder Singh belies her assertions. The claimants have also not been able to show whether the deceased was selling milk. No evidence has been brought on record.
10. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly taken the total salary of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and assessed the compensation by taking the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 1,500/- per month. Thus, the dependency of the claimants has been worked out to be Rs. 18,000/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of 18, a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- has been awarded. By adding another sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards funeral and loss of consortium, a total sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- has been awarded. I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded in the present case has been assessed correctly.
11. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the National Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company tendered into evidence a photo copy of the driving licence, Exhibit R-l, according to which Satish-respondent No. 1 was authorised to drive a Scooter, Motor Cycle and Car only. There is no mention that he was also entitled to drive a three-wheeler and on this basis, the Tribunal has held mat the Insurance Company is not liable.
12. On the other hand, Shri S.S. Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has argued that the insurer cannot avoid its liability for a technical breach of conditions concerning the driving licence. He has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parveen Kumar and Ors. (2005-1)139 P.L.R. 230 wherein the Full Bench has held as under:
“10. The issue being no more res-integra, needs no further elaboration. We may, however, hasten to add that the Insurance Company can not be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of the different class of description, unless it is proved that the cause of accident was the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description. The observation made by the Supreme Court presuppose that if the driver was driving a vehicle, of which he might not be holding licence as such, but was holding a driving licence of a different description of vehicle, and the driving method of both the vehicles, for which licence was obtained and the one which was being driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by the Insurance Company with regard to the driver not possessing requisite type of licence could be of no avail to it.
We thus overrule the view taken by the Division Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) 1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 369 and hold that if on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. The defence projected by the Insurance Company in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and proviso appended to Sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can succeed only if it is proved that the accident had taken place only because the driver was not possessing requisite type of licence.”
13. A perusal of the aforementioned judgment clearly shows that as the driving method of the vehicle for which the driver had been given the driving licence was the same as that of the offending vehicle, therefore, the defence of the Insurance Company with regard to the driver not possessing a valid driving licence, cannot be accepted. As the driver was competent to drive a Scooter, Motor-cycle and Car only and the mechanism of these vehicles is similar to that of a three-wheeler (Tempo), therefore, it is held that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving licence and as such he was competent to drive a Tempo three-wheeler also and, therefore, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation, as determined by the Tribunal.
14. In view of the above, the judgment of the Tribunal, dated June 3, 2002 is modified and accordingly it is held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the realization of the entire amount. The liability to pay the entire amount shall be of National Insurance Company, Rohtak-respondent No. 3 as the offending vehicle was duly insured with it and as respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence. A sum of Rs. 79,000/- shall be paid to claimant-appellant No. 1-Nirmala, whereas Rs. 72,000/- each shall be paid to the minor children. The shares of the minors, i.e. Appellants No. 2, 3 and 4, shall be deposited in some Nationalised Bank in their names and shall be paid to them on attaining the age of majority.