JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1 This appeal arises out of the following facts:-
On 4.9.1981 at about 7.15 p.m., Bhajan Lal deceased and one Piare Lai were coming to village Mangali from Hissar on Motor Cycle No. HYB-2088, Bhajan Lal was driving the motor cycle whereas Piare Lai was sitting on the rear seat. When they reached near the area of village Gangua, a tractor bearing registration No. HRB-9950 driven by Bhagwan Dass respondent No. 1 in the claim petition came from the opposite side at a very high speed. On seeing the tractor coming towards him, Bhajan Lal took the motor cycle towards the kacha portion but the tractor driver could not control his vehicle and struck against the motor cycle and as a result of the accident both Bhajan Lal and Piare Lal received injuries and were removed to the hospital where Bhajan Lal died shortly thereafter. On these facts, the claimants i.e. the mother and the minor child of Bhajan Lal filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
2. On notices, the respondents put in appearance and claimed that the tractor had not been involved in the accident, whereas respondent No.3 the Insurance Co. took the plea that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by Bhajan Lal deceased, more particularly as he had no valid driving licence. The Insurance Company also pleaded that as the tractor driver was not holding a valid driving licence, it was not liable on that additional ground as well.
3. On the questions posed, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bhagwan Dass-respondent No. 1? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to get and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is time barred ? OPR
4. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed as alleged in preliminary objection Nos. 1 and 3 of the written statement? OPR
5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPR
6.Relief.
4. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, Bhagwan Dass. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that on a consideration of the evidence, it was evident that the monthly income of Bhajan Lal deceased was about Rs. 600/- and that after spending a sum of Rs. 200/- per month on himself, the annual dependency worked out to be Rs. 4800/- and applying a multiplier of 16 as the deceased was about 26 years of age determined the compensation at Rs. 76,800/-. The Tribunal further held that Bhagwan Dass the tractor driver did not have a driving licence and as such though the tractor stood insured, the Insurance Company was not liable to make good the compensation and accordingly held the owner and the driver of the tractor i.e. the two appellants responsible jointly and severally for the payment of the compensation. Hence this appeal at their instance.
5. Mr. L.M. Suri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that he did not seriously challenge the quantum of compensation that had been determined by the Tribunal but the finding of the Tribunal that Bhagwan Dass did not hold a valid driving licence was incorrect. He has further pointed out that while this appeal remained pending here, CM No. 7591 CII and 7592-CII of 1993 was moved for additional evidence and this CM was allowed after notice to the parties and Ramesh Chand the owner of the truck and Bhagwan Dass its driver were duly examined and the driving licence Ex.C-1 in the name of Bhagwan Dass was proved in this case and as such the Insurance Company could no longer escape its liability to pay the compensation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. As already mentioned above, the compensation that has been found due has not been seriously challenged by Mr. Suri. The only ground by which the Insurance Company was able to escape its liability was that Bhagwan Dass did not hold a driving licence. As mentioned above this shortcoming in the evidence was filled up as the licence Ex.C-1 has been produced and proved in this Court. A look at this licence (which is limited for the purpose of driving a tractor) would indicate that it was initially valid from 7.9.1965 to 6.9.1968 and that it was subsequently renewed from 7.1.1982 to 6.1.1985. It is apparent therefore that as the accident had taken place on 4.9.1981 the licence at that time was not a valid one as it had expired. However, in the light of the judgment of Ram Phul v. Krishna Makkar and Ors., (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 561, Mr. Suri has urged that if the driver at the time of the accident had a valid driving licence or had held one earlier, the Insurance Company was] liable ipso factor. This assertion of the learned counsel is borne out by the judgment cited by him.
7. Mr. Munishwar Puri, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has, however, argued that the document Ex.C-1 could not be read into evidence as it had not been properly proved. In this connection, he has cited Malwa Bus Service (P) Ltd., Moga, District Faridkot, through its Managing Director and Anr. v. Amrit Kaur and Anr., (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 618, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandrawati etc., (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 240, and an unreported judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satya Devi and Ors., (F.A.O. No. 2090 of 1995) Decided on 13th October, 1995.
8. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel and find that they do not apply to the facts of the present case. First and foremost, it is to be noticed that this argument is not open to the learned counsel in the light of the order of this Court dated 20th May, 1994 in which Mr. Puri the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company clearly stated that after enquiry, the Insurance Company had found out that the driving licence Ex.C-1 was a genuine document. It was, thereafter, that the additional evidence of Ramesh Kumar owner of the tractor and Bhagwan Dass its driver was recorded on 25th October, 1994 and the latter produced Ex. C-l in Court and it was duly exhibited. Despite an opportunity having been given to Mr. Puri, not a single question was put in cross-examination. Obviously, this was so because in his statement made in Court on 20th May, 1994. Mr. Puri had accepted the genuineness of the driving licence.
9. Mr. Puri has then argued that as the driving licence had been produced at the appellate stage, the levy of interest which was found to be payable by the Insurance Company, was not justified. In this connection, he has cited Joginder Singh and Anr. v. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 642.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this argument is not open to challenge to the learned counsel Mr. Puri in the light of the fact that the obligation to show that the driver was not holding a driving licence lay on the Insurance Company.
11. The claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the deceased had an income of Rs. 1000/- per month and as he was frugal person, he spent only Rs. 200/- per month on himself. I have considered this argument of the learned counsel and find that some enhancement in the compensation is called for. As already mentioned above, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- and that he would have spent a sum of Rs. 200/- on himself, I am of the opinion that in the light of the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- per month as per the evidence, the monthly dependency should be raised to Rs. 800/- and having come to this conclusion, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,53,600/-. This appeal is, accordingly dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed, but it is held that the United India Insurance Company (respondent No. 1) alone would be liable to pay the amount of compensation.