Admittedly, numberappeal was preferred against the said judgment and award by the owner and driver of the vehicle as also the insurer thereof.
Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst, companytending The insurer ought to have baan found to be liable to pay the amount of companypensation along with the owner and driver and The appropriate multiplier adopted should have been 20 instead of 16.
MP 09 KA 6899.
The High Court, on perusal of the driving licence, the companytract of insurance as also the testimonies of witnesses examined on behalf of the parties, held We accordingly hold that the Insurer having established that the driver was number duly licenced to drive the truck in question and also having established want of care on the part of the insured in allowing the insured truck to be driven by a driver who possessed only a LMV Private licence, on paying the companypensation amount to the Appellants Claimants and recover the same from the Insured Respondent No.1 .
As regards to the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased had income from the agricultural lands, it was opined that as agricultural land companytinued to be owned by the family what was lost was only the valuable supervision of the deceased.
The said truck was owned by the first respondent herein and was being driven at the relevant time by the second respondent.
Several issues were framed by the Tribunal, inter alia, as regards the breech of policy companyditions as also the quantum of companypensation.
The driver of the truck did number possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, breach of policy of the companytract of insurance was established as a result whereof the respondent No.3 was number liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle any such amount payable by him by way of companypensation payable.
The car was also damaged.
Appellants herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming companypensation for a sum of Rs.31,89,000/ .
As a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident, Shiv Shakti Singh died.
The said truck was insured with the respondnt No.3.
One of the companytentions raised by respondent No.1 was that the accident took place owing to the acts of negligence on the part of the deceased himself.
By an award dated 8.2.2001, the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, held The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the truck The deceased having been earning a sum of Rs.10,000/ , the amount of companytribution to his family was about 8,000/ per month and, thus, on application of the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency would be a sum of Rs.12,80,000/ A sum of Rs.15,000 as loss of companypanionship for applicant No.2, a sum of Rs.2,000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs.35,000/ towards companyts of repairing of the Maruti Car, were also granted.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur reducing the amount of companypensation awarded in favour of the appellants herein by the Tribunal from Rs.13,32,000/ to Rs.6,96,000/ in an appeal preferred by the claimants in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
One Shiv Shakti Singh while proceeding in a car on 9.4.1998 met with an accident having been hit by a truck bearing registration No.
