A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award, dated 12th April, 2005, passed by learned 3rd Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Facts of the case are these:
On 15th December, 2002, Sukhdev, aged 48 years and owner of tanker bearing No. MP-09-KA-4413 died while driving his own vehicle. Along with him, the cleaner of tanker traveling with Sukhdev also died. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his death. According to claimants, tanker in question was insured with respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) and hence, they being the insurer were liable to pay compensation for his death. The respondent contested the case. Parties adduced the evidence. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition essentially on the ground that since deceased himself was driving his own vehicle and hence, the policy in question does not cover the risk of owner (insured). In other words, the opinion of learned Member of Tribunal in the absence of any coverage granted to the insured in respect of his own case for injury or death arising out of accident with his vehicle in question, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. It is on this ground, the claim petition was dismissed giving rise to filing of this appeal.
2. Heard Mr. J.M. Poonegar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. H. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the award of dismissal, allow the claim petition in part and award reasonable compensation to the claimants on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has shown us photocopy of certificate of insurance issued by the respondent (company) in favour of insured i.e. Sukhdev. In this certificate, it is specifically mentioned by way of condition that risk of insured is also covered. This is how the condition reads in the said certificate:
Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence. Provided also that a person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for transport of goods at the time of the accident and such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule No. 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989.
5. True it is that this document was not exhibited as no exhibit mark could be mentioned on this certificate in evidence. But in our view, this being a technicality, we cannot disown the very certificate on this ground. It is much more so when the insurer despite granting an opportunity being a party to the lies i.e. in suit and in appeal, never objected to this document nor denied its existence by any manner. In these circumstances, we find no good ground to discard this certificate and placing reliance upon the same hold that in the case in hand, the insured had covered the risk of insurer i.e. deceased while issuing the coverage certificate. In other words, in view of aforesaid condition in the certificate issued in favour of insured i.e. deceased, the risk of deceased as owner of the vehicle was also covered by the policy in question in the event of any accident arising out of the use of the vehicle thereby entitling the insured himself or his legal representatives (as the case may be) to claim compensation for injury or death as the case may be arising out of the accident in relation to the use of vehicle in question. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of the Tribunal and hence, mistake seems to have occurred resulting in dismissal of claim petition. We, thus, set aside that part of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and hold that insurer (respondent No. 1) was liable to pay for compensation to the legal representatives of deceased who died in motor accident while driving his own vehicle.
6. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it has come on record that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 4,000 from his business. We accept this finding. Accordingly, it becomes Rs. 48,000 yearly. Deductingl/3rd, we get around Rs. 32,000 as dependency. Applying the multiplier of 13 as per his age (48 years), we get a figure of Rs. 32,000 x 13=Rs. 4,16,000. In addition, a sum of Rs. 15,000 is further awarded by way of conventional compensation thereby making a total of Rs. 4,16,000 + Rs. 15,000=Rs. 4,31,000.
7. In other words, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 4,31,000 by way of compensation for the death of Sukhdev.
8. The compensation awarded to the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation.
10. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is set aside and, instead, an award for Rs. 4,31,000/ - is passed against the respondent (Insurance Company) and in favour of appellants above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge at the instance of appellant as also respondent.
Counsel fees Rs. 1,500, if certified.