1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-National Insurance Company against the award dated 02.12.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 29-S/2 of 2010, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 & 2-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'MV Act') was allowed.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the claimants, being the parents of deceased Surender Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, filed a claim petition before the learned Court below seeking compensation from Satpal Singh (respondent No. 3 herein-owner/driver of the accidental vehicle No.HR-34-1142) and from National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company). As per the claimants, on 15.05.2009 the deceased Surender Kumar alongwith one Arbind Singh (pillion rider) was going towards Shimla on his motorcycle No. CH-04-F-9345 and at around 01:30 p.m., when they reached near Shalaghat, respondent No.3-driver-cum-owner of vehicle No. HR-34-1142, who was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, struck the same against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased and pillion rider Arbind Singh sustained grievous injuries. In the vehicle of respondent No. 3, Kalu Ahmad, Sarif, Ikram and Rafiq were also travelling. The deceased and Arbind Singh were taken to IGMC, Shimla, wherefrom they were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. As per the claimants, the deceased remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh twice, firstly w.e.f. 15.05.2009 to 07.07.2009 and thereafter w.e.f. 22.08.2009 to 06.09.2009 and ultimately he died on 24.03.2010 due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. The claimants further averred that they spent Rs.7,00,000/- on the treatment of the deceased and after his death, they also spent Rs.50,000/- on his last rites and other rituals. It has also been averred in the claim petition that at the time of his death, the deceased was working as Computer Operator, who was earning Rs.7,000/- per month and his age was 26 years at that time. Therefore, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents, who are owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The owner of the vehicle in his reply averred that the deceased was not earning Rs.7,000/- per month at the time of the accident and the accident had not occurred due to his negligence. In fact, the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased in a very high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner, which had caused collision of the vehicles. He denied that the claimants had spent Rs.7,00,000/- on the treatment of the deceased by the claimants. Hence, it was prayed that in case the claimants were held entitled for compensation, then the same was liable to be paid by the Insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed separate reply to the claim petition, wherein it was averred that the claim petition was not maintainable. It was averred in the reply that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligence driving of respondent No.1-Satpal Singh and in fact, deceased Surender Kumar was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road and it was he who struck his motorcycle against the offending vehicle. It was further averred that the owner and insurer of vehicle No.CH-04-F-9345 were the necessary parties and their non-joining rendered the claim petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle No.HR-34-1142 was not having a valid and effective driving license and he was also not possessing the valid registration and fitness certificate as well as route permit, as such, he was plying his vehicle in violation of the provisions of the MV Act and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.2 also averred that the claim petition was filed by the claimants in collusion with respondent No.1 (driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle) and the compensation claimed was exaggerated and inflated and, therefore, the prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.

5. The learned Court below has framed the following issues on 10.05.2012 for consideration and adjudication:-

"1. Whether the deceased Surender Kumar died in accident with the offending pickup No. HR-34-1142 as a result of rash and negligent driving on 15.05.2009 near village Shalaghat on National Highway-22, Tehsil and Police Station, Kandaghat and thereby the petitioners being dependent on the deceased are entitled for compensation If so, extent and liability thereof OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged OPR

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, as alleged OPR

4. Whether the offending vehicle was not holding a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit at the time of the accident, as alleged OPR

5. Whether the accident had taken place as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased, as alleged OPR

6. Relief."

6. After deciding issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and issues No. 2 to 5 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,96,990/- from the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

7. Aggrieved against the impugned award, the claimants/cross-objectors also preferred cross-objections ( C.O. No.63 of 2014) on the ground that the findings of the learned Tribunal below on issue No.1 are wrong and against the law and facts of the case since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 25 years, as such, the multiplier of '18' was required to be applied instead of '7' and the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below.

8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and also carefully gone through the entire record carefully.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contented that the driver of the vehicle in question was not possessing a valid and effective driving at the time of the accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation as the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below had fallen into error in directing the payment of huge amount of compensation to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the accident in question.

10. The onus was upon the insurance company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. To prove this issue, the insurance company examined RW-1 Narender Kumar and RW-4 Ravi Karan Singh. RW-1 Narender Kumar, Administrative Officer, Divisional Office of the appellant-Insurance Company, deposed that the driving license No.S-3127/MTR/99 had not been issued by the Motor Licensing Authority, Mathura and in this respect, the Investigator of the company had sent his report Ext. RW1/B and copy of the form No.54 Ext. RW1/C and as per the report, the said license was fake having not been issued by the competent authority. However, no reliance can be placed upon the report of the Investigator Ext. RW1/B as the insurance company has failed to produce the investigator who had sent the report Ext. RW1/B. There is also nothing in his report that on what basis he had come to the conclusion that the said driving license of respondent No.1 was fake. Similarly, the person who had issued form No.54 Ext. RW1/C has also not been examined, as such, no benefit can be derived by the insurance company from the form No.54 Ext. RW1/C. RW-4 Ravi Karan Singh is another witness examined by the insurance company, who was the Junior Clerk in the office of ARTO, Mathura. He deposed that the driving license No. S-3127/MTR/99 was never issued from their office and to this effect, the report and the writing Ext. RW1/C and Ext. RW4/A are correct. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that the register for the year 1999, which he had brought consisted of 152 pages and on its cover page, it has been mentioned that the licenses No.S- 2255 to 3858 have been issued from their office and it had stamp of ARTO, Mathura. The learned Tribunal below dealt with this issue as under:-

"25. The statement of RW-1 that the driving license No.5- 3127/MTR/99 has not been issued by the said Motor Licensing Authority Mathura and that to that effect the investigator of the company has sent his report Ex.RWI/B and the copy of the form No.54 Ex.RWI/C and as per this report the said license was fake having not been issued by the competent authority. This evidence of the respondent No.2, cannot be taken into consideration and, therefore, cannot be relied upon, because the said investigator who has sent the report Ex.RWI/B, has not been examined. On what basis he has come to the conclusion that the said driving license of the respondent No.1, was fake is not clear from this report Ex.RWI/B. So no benefit can be taken by the respondent No.2, from this statement of RW-1, about the alleged driving license of the respondent No.1, Ex.RW2/A, being fake The other witness examined by the respondents is RW-4 who is Junior Clerk in ARTO Office Mathura. He has deposed on oath that the driving license No.S-3127/MTR/99 has never been issued from ARTO office Mathura and to this effect the report and the writing Ex.RWI/C, and Ex.PW4/A, are correct. He has been cross -examined at length wherein he has admitted that license No.S-2555 to 3858 have been issued from the office of ARTO Mathura. When the license No.S-2555 to 3858 have been issued then the license of the respondent No.1 is S-3127 having been issued in 1999. It means that this license has been issued. Since this license is in the name of respondent No.1, it means that it has validly been issued by the ARTO Mathura. It is not the case of the respondent No.2, that this license No.S- 3127/MRT/99 has been issued to some other person other than the respondent No.1. Even the statement of RW-4 does not show as to in whose favour this license No. S-3127/MRT/99 has been issued. Since this license has been issued from ARTO office Mathura as deposed by RW-4, and the said license belongs to respondent No.1, the copy of which is Ex.RW2/A, therefore, it is held that the respondent No.1, was holding the valid and effective driving license on the date of accident."

11. No cogent and satisfactory evidence has been led by the appellant-insurance company to prove that respondent No.1, who was driving the vehicle in question was not in possession of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Thus, the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal below on the issuance of the driving license cannot be faulted with, which are borne out from the material on record. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle in question was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident in question.

12. The learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2-claimants contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal below on issue No.1, whereby the multiplier of '7' has been applied on the annual dependency, are wrong and against the law and facts of the case since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 25 years, as such, the multiplier of '18' is required to be applied instead of '7' and the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, while seriously opposing the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the claimants, contended that the learned Tribunal below had already assessed huge amount of compensation to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the accident in question and they are not entitled for any further enhancement of compensation.

13. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years and he died as a bachelor. The first claimant is the father and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 65, [LQ/SC/2011/819] in which the Hon'ble Apex Court was required to deal with a similar situation where the aged parents were sole dependents of their young deceased son of 19 years of age. After consideration and following the case of Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir Singh: (2008) 2 SCC 667, [LQ/SC/2008/113] the Apex court held that the multiplier that would apply would be after considering the age of the parents of the deceased. The Court has held in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment as under:-

"9. This Court in Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh,(2008) 2 SCC 667, [LQ/SC/2008/113] after referring to the earlier judgments of this Court, in detail, dealt with the law with regard to determination of the multiplier in a similar situation as in the present case. The said findings of this Court are as under:-

"6. We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie: AIR 2005 SC 2157 [LQ/SC/2005/407] , it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the trial court or before us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running 56th year of his life.

7. The learned Counsel relying on the Second Schedule of the Act contended that the deceased being about 16 or 17 years of age, a multiplier of 16 or 17 should have been granted. It is undoubtedly true that Section 163-A was brought on the statute book to shorten the period of litigation. The burden to prove the negligence or fault on the part of driver and other allied burdens under Section 140 or Section 166 were really cumbersome and time consuming. Therefore as a part of social justice, a system was introduced via Section 163-A wherein such burden was avoided and thereby a speedy remedy was provided. The relief under Section 163-A has been held not to be additional but alternate. The Schedule provided has been threadbare discussed in various pronouncements including Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: AIR 2004 SC 2107 [LQ/SC/2004/388] . The Second Schedule is to be used not only for referring to age of victim but also other factors relevant therefor. Complicated questions of facts and law arising in accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on mathematical equations. In fact in U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra: (1996) 4 SCC 362, [LQ/SC/1996/946] Ahmadi, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) has pointed out the shortcomings in the said Schedule and has held that the Schedule can only be used as a guide. It was also held that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. If a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the Second Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has happened in this case. Age of the parents was held as a relevant factor in case of minor's death in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim.: AIR 2008 SC 103 [LQ/SC/2007/1121] . In our considered opinion, the courts below rightly struck the said balance."

10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Ramesh Singh case is applicable to the present case on all fours "

14. Thus, what is evident from the above decisions is that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. In the present case, the age of the deceased at the relevant time was 25 years. The age of the father was 64 years when the evidence was recorded in the year 2012 as disclosed by him in the affidavit Ext. PW4/A. Thus, his age was 61 years at the time of the accident. Keeping in mind the above decisions, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal below has righty adopted the multiplier of '7' by placing reliance upon the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma, Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 [LQ/SC/2009/869] . After adopting the multiplier of '7', the total compensation on account of dependency was rightly assessed at Rs.4,41,000/-. Hence, the findings with respect to the dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal below to the tune of Rs.4,41,000/- does not call for any interference by this Court. However, perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal below had failed to award compensation in favour of the claimants on account of loss of estate as well as on account of filial consortium.

15. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in 2018:INSC:828 : (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, [LQ/SC/2018/1175] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse:

21.1. Spousal consortium is general defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation o the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child."

16. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati and Ors, 2020:INSC:535 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, [LQ/SC/2020/650 ;] the learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that the claimants being parents of the deceased are also entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each,. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.,2018:INSC:828 : (2018) 18 SCC 130, [LQ/SC/2018/1175] which has been also taken note of, in Somwati's case, has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment passed in Somwati's case (supra) has held as under:-

"34. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' which have been now further reiterated by three- Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection'.

35. The word 'consortium' has been defined in Black's law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black's law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner:-

"Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.

Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent.

Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child.

Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse."

36. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) as well as United India Insurance Company ltd.(Supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), 'consortium' to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below:-

"87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:-

i) Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000

ii) Loss of consortium:

a) Spousal consortium: Rs.40,000

b) Parental consortium: 40,000x3 = Rs. 1,20,000

iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000"

37. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the 'loss of consortium' but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife.

38. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.

39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head 'loss of love and affection'. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection."

17. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforecited judgments, the claimants are also entitled to loss of estate of at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and filial consortium of at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to modify the award passed by learned Tribunal below as under:-

18. This Court, however, does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation.

19. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is dismissed, whereas the cross-objections preferred by the claimants/cross-objectors are partly allowed and the impugned award dated 02.12.2013 passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Interim directions, if any, are vacated

20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.