1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bheenmal, District Jalore in MAC Case No.87/2011 (99/2014) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and exonerated respondent No.2 Insurance Company from its liability.

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 22.02.2017 awarded a sum of Rs.10,06,200/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.09.2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimants with the submission that on 27.05.2011, Mohd. Khan was travelling towards Bheenmal in his loading tempo bearing registration No.RJ-24-GA-0680. Upon reaching near Mudtara-Abantri Fanta, a transport vehicle/Pickup bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-1660, owned by respondent No. 1, approached from behind which being driven rashly and negligently, caused a collision resulting in the fatality of Mohd. Khan due to sustained injuries. FIR No.73/2011 pertaining to this incident was lodged at Police Station Modra.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.2 – Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants are dependants of deceased Mohd. Khan. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,40,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,06,200/- in favour of the claimants- appellants, the break-up of which is as under:

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation on the premise that the driver of the vehicle in question was holding the license for a light motor vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle and hence, the same was a breach of the policy condition.

5. Learned counsel submitted that as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.; (2017) 14 SCC 663 and affirmed by larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.; 2024 INSC 840, a person holding a license for light motor vehicle is also entitled to drive a transport vehicle weighing not more than 7,500 kilograms.

6. Learned counsel, on quantum of compensation, submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads.

7. No other grounds have been raised by the counsel for the appellants-claimants.

8. Per contra learned counsel for respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously considered the future prospects of the deceased @30% whereas same ought to be considered @25% as per the income and age of the deceased.

9. So far as the ratio laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) is concerned, learned counsel is not in a position to refute the same.

10. Heard the counsels and perused the material available on record.

11. So far as the exoneration of the respondent Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same deserves interference in light of the law settled in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) and further affirmed in Bajaj Alliance’s case (supra).

In Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“46…...(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in Section 2(21) of thewould include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road-roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form."

12. Admittedly, gross weight of the vehicle involved in the present accident is 2750 Kilograms. Therefore, the same would definitely be governed by the ratio laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra). The finding on Issue No.3 as recorded by the learned Tribunal is hence reversed. It is hereby held that the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the owner and to pay the compensation amount as awarded to the claimants.

13. Qua the issue of the deceased’s future prospects, this Court draws upon the precedent set in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and holds that addition for the deceased's future prospects will be at the rate of 25% as it is an admitted case that deceased was self-employed and was of around 46 years of age at the time of the accident.

14. Coming on to the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount as determined under conventional heads shall be payable to each of the claimants.

15. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 22.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bheenmal, District Jalore in MAC Case No.87/2011 (99/2014) is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:

16. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not paid by the owner/driver yet) and the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.

17. It is hereby clarified that if the respondent no.1 owner has paid/deposited any amount qua the judgment/award datedn22.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bheenmal, District Jalore in MAC Case No.87/2011 (99/2014), the respondent-Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner for the amount so deposited/paid.

18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.