JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the insurance company directed against the award dated 22.12.1997 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 296 of 1994 whereby the claim of the claimants has been decreed by the learned Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 2,09,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that an accident took place on 2.1.94 in which the deceased Ramjilal Gupta died. It is alleged that on the fateful day, deceased Ramjilal Gupta, after completing his night duty at Milk Plant situated at Adhartal, was coming back to his house at 7.00 a.m. When he was near the A.B. Gas Company, Adhartal, a tanker bearing No. M.P. 20-C 0526 coming from back side, struck against the cyclist Ramjilal Gupta as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. The matter was immediately reported and a case was registered with the police against the tanker driver.
3. The dependants of the deceased filed a claim before the learned Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 as compensation, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 for damage to the cycle. A total sum of Rs. 4,63,000 was claimed towards compensation. The driver and owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The claim was contested by the insurance company, denying the incident as also the liability to pay compensation. It was contended that though the tanker was insured with the insurance company but at the relevant time the driver was not having a valid driving licence. It is also alleged that the tanker was not having a fitness certificate, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, about seven issues were framed. The claimants led evidence of eyewitnesses, Munnalal, PW 2 and Abdul Razzak, PW 5. Munnalal, PW 2, deposed that on 2.1.94, he was going to his sister’s house to Pana-gar and at that time, he saw that a tanker had struck against a cyclist from behind as a result of which the cyclist fell down. He has deposed that the tanker, after striking the cyclist from the back, stopped for a while and thereafter sped away. He has deposed that he identified that the deceased was Ramjilal Gupta. Likewise, Abdul Razzak, PW 5, has deposed that he saw the tanker striking the cyclist from the back. On the basis of evidence of these two eyewitnesses, the learned Tribunal found that the vehicle was of course being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
5. The claimants also led evidence with regard to the dependency. It is alleged that the deceased was 42-43 years old. Jagannath Gupta, PW 1, the father of the deceased has stated that his son deceased Ramjilal Gupta was working as a Security Guard in the M.P. MilkCorporation Limited and his monthly income was more than Rs. 2,000. He has stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 800-900 per month and since he was a Security Guard, he was also getting extra sum of Rs. 700. He also used to run a pan shop and was earning Rs. 50 per day. Therefore, the total income of the deceased was alleged to be Rs. 2,500 per month. Munnalal, PW 2, also deposed that the deceased was doing service and was also running pan shop. Likewise, Raju Namdeo, PW 3, has deposed that the deceased was running a pan thela. Kalawati, PW 4, wife of deceased has also deposed that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month.
6. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Tribunal worked out that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 1,500, and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom which the deceased used to spend on himself, the dependency of the family was worked out to the tune of Rs. 1,000 per month (annually Rs. 12,000). The age of the deceased was said to be 42 years and that of his father about 72 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and worked out the dependency to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 500 for repair of the cycle. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 2,09,500 has been awarded to the claimants as compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in fact the driver of the tanker in question was not having a valid driving licence; and in that connection, he invited our attention to the statement of Santosh Kumar Sinha, DW 2, who was working as Investigator for the appellant insurance company. He has deposed that he went to the office of R.T.O., Bhagalpur from where the licence is said to have been issued and verified the licence No. J/183/87 and on verification, he found that this licence was not issued in the name of present driver, namely, Jagmohan Yadav and it was issued in the name of somebody else. He obtained a certificate from the R.T.O., Bhagalpur. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the statement of Ashish Singhal, DW 1, who was a surveyor. In his statement, he has stated that he went to the office of R.T.O., Jabalpur where he found that the licence No. J/183/87 was issued in the name of Jagmohan Yadav, son of Buddhu Yadav. He has deposed that the licence was renewed by the R.T.O., Jabalpur but it was issued by R.T.O., Bhagalpur. He has deposed that the driver was authorised by the R.T.O., Bhagalpur to drive light vehicle and not the heavy vehicle. Our attention was also invited to the original licence which is on record as Exh. D-2. Exh. D-2 shows that the licence had been renewed by the R.T.O., Jabalpur and there is an endorsement on it to the effect- “Subject to verification from original Authority, Bhagalpur”.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that as per the report of the Investigator, it is apparent that the licence No. J/183/87 was not issued in the name of the driver Jagmohan. Question before us is whether this number of the licence, i.e., J/183/87 was issued by the R.T.O., Bhagalpur or R.T.O., Jabalpur. Exh. D-2 renewal of licence No. J/183/87 shows that it was issued by the R.T.O., Jabalpur whereas enquiry was made at Bhagalpur pertaining to this number. Proper course for the appellant was to have made enquiry at Bhagalpur with reference to original licence number issued at Bhagalpur. If that was done, it would have clinched the matter. In the present case, it appears from the record that the enquiry was made with reference to the renewed licence number issued by Jabalpur R.T.O. from R.T.O., Bhagalpur as to whether this licence was issued from there or not. This query at R.T.O., Bhagalpur was totally misconceived. Learned counsel on instructions from the authorities submits that the licence No. J/183/87 was issued by the R.T.O., Jabalpur and the Investigator has not properly applied his mind whether this number pertains to Jabalpur or Bhagalpur. Therefore, statement of these witnesses appears to be wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed on the witnesses produced by the insurance company to sustain the contention that the driver was not having valid licence. This was the basic contention before the learned Tribunal raised by the insurance company. After perusing the record, it appears that licence No. J/183/87 is that of Jabalpur R.T.O. and investigation had been made on the basis of the licence from Bhagalpur which is totally misconceived. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence cannot be sustained.
9. Coming next to the question of quantum of compensation, no cross-objection has been filed by the other side. We have also examined the statement of father and widow of the deceased and we are of the opinion that the dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1,000 per month, in the present case, does not appear to be excessive, nor the multiplier of 16. We are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the present case does not appear to be excessive.
10. In view of above, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.