M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal, by the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.5.1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Misc. Claim Case No. 25 of 1990 by which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,16,755 by way of compensation on account of death of Major Niraj Sinha, an army officer in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants-respondents, who are widow and children, filed the afore mentioned claim for grant of compensation alleging, inter alia, that the deceased had boarded a mini bus bearing registration No. BRL 2223 at the Koderma Railway Station in the morning of 3.1.1990 for coming to Hazaribagh town. It is said that the vehicle was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against a roadside tree as a result of which three occupants of the bus including driver and the deceased were killed. A number of other persons sustained injuries and were removed to hospital. The deceased was an army officer aged about 34 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 5,865 per month. The claim was contested by opposite party-appellant by filing written statement and it took the defence that the amount of compensation is excessive and exorbitant, that the liability of the insurance company is limited. The Tribunal after hearing the parties disposed of the claim case by the impugned judgment. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal assessed the compensation by taking into consideration various factors and came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 13,16,755.
2. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal and contrary to the evidence and facts on record. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the person driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel, secondly, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal has not correctly adopted the settled principle of law while assessing the quantum of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the grant of compensation for mental shock and agony is erroneous in law. Learned counsel submitted that in no case the amount of compensation should have been more than Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 6,00,000. In this connection, learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC). Mr. Chatterjee then drew my attention towards petition filed on 31.1.1992 under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code on which this Court after hearing the parties on that application on 22.10.92 ordered that the said petition shall be considered at the time of hearing. In the said petition appellant prayed for acceptance of photocopy of the driving licence and claim form as additional evidence. According to the appellant the vehicle was being driven on the date of the accident by Upendra Kumar Singh who also died in the accident. The said Upendra Kumar Singh was authorised to drive a medium goods vehicle and the licence was valid up to 7.10.1989. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle had already expired and the driver was having no driving licence on the date of accident. In that view of the matter, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation.
3. On the other hand, Mr. S. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants not only supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal but also pressed the cross-objections filed by the claimants-respondents for enhancement of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the amount of compensation is much low inasmuch as the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000 by way of compensation but a very low sum has been awarded by the Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel if the deceased had been alive, his income would have been enhanced up to the extent of Rs. 9,000 and in that view Rs. 14,00,000 would have been reasonable compensation.
4. At this juncture, it is worth to mention here that on 12.1.1998 when this appeal was listed for hearing, a second application under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the appellant insurance company for accepting the copy of one page of the insurance certificate as an additional evidence. However, this application was not pressed at the time of hearing of this appeal.
5. First of all, I will take up the first point raised by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the person driving the vehicle had no driving licence on the date of accident as the period of licence had already expired and, therefore, insurance company has no liability. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. From the perusal of the written statement filed by the insurance company in the claim case before the court below it does not appear that any specific defence was taken that the person driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence. No evidence to that effect was led by the appellant before the Tribunal. From the petition filed under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, a plea was taken that driving licence of the driver was valid up to 7.10.1989 while accident took place on 3.1.1990. In support of that a copy of the permanent licence has been filed and annexed as Annexure-A to the said petition. From perusal of Annexure-A, it is evident that by the said licence the driver was authorised to drive the transport vehicles and the licence was valid from 8.10.86 to 7.10.1989. There is an endorsement of renewal of the licence made by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh, whereby the licence was renewed up to July, 1992. The defence sought to be taken by the appellant by relying on driving licence would not, in my opinion, improve the case of the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the person who was driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence at any point of time or the said person was not authorised to drive the vehicle. Admittedly, the driver who was driving the vehicle on the date of accident was holding a valid driving licence duly granted by licensing authority in 1986 and the licence-was valid up to 7.10.1989. The driver was, therefore, authorised to drive transport vehicles and he was a licensed driver. Although there is an endorsement of renewal of the licence also as appearing in the licence but even assuming that there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and omission of the driver to get the licence renewed it cannot be said at any stretch of imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for which insurance company can be exonerated from the liability. As stated above, the driver was authorised to drive the transport vehicles and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and, therefore, in my considered opinion, this plea of the insurance company to absolve itself from the liability cannot be sustained in law.
6. The second point raised by Mr. Chatterjee is with regard to the quantum of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the question of quantum of compensation, claimants examined witness AW 1, the father of the deceased who stated that his son used to pay income tax of Rs. 6,494 per year. The witness also proved salary certificate, etc., to show that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 5,865 per month. The Tribunal, however, taking into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 5,865 took the monthly dependency at Rs. 3,910. By applying the multiplier theory and taking 24 years' purchase the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 11,26,080. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 50,000 for suffering mental pain and agony and awarded further sum of Rs. 1,66,755 being the interest from the date of filing of the application to the date of judgment. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,16,755. So far the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,26,080 is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not correctly applied multiplier theory in assessing the compensation. The Tribunal has taken 24 years of purchase on the ground that the deceased would have served another 24 years in army service. This is not a correct approach of law inasmuch as the remaining period of' service cannot be taken as number of years purchase while applying multiplier theory. In my opinion the Tribunal ought to have taken a maximum 18 years of purchase and by applying the same the amount of compensation should have been Rs. 8,44,560 (i.e., Rs. 3,910 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 8,44,560). In my opinion round figure, Rs. 8,50,000 would be the reasonable compensation on the basis of multiplier theory. So far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The total compensation, therefore, payable to the claimants should be Rs. 8,50,000, Rs. 50,000, Rs. 1,66,755 (which is amount of interest), i.e., total Rs. 10,66,755. The decision upon which the appellant put heavy reliance [1996 ACJ 581 (SC)] does not help the appellant for the reason that in that case the deceased was a Captain in the Army and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,543 whereas in the instant case admittedly the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,865. So far as amount of interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it appears to me that the same is not reasonable rather vague. In one place, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to get compensation together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent but in the operative portion of the judgment the rate of interest has been shown as 18 per cent. In any case, 18 per cent interest would be excessive. It appears that the Tribunal already awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of institution of the claim case till the date of the judgment. Accordingly, I hold that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to further interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 from the date of judgment till the date of payment.
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified accordingly. Consequently, cross-objection filed by the claimants-respondents is dismissed.