S.G. Chapalgaonkar JUDGMENT
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
1. The appellants/original claimants impugn the judgment and award dated 19/11/2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in Motor Accident Claim Petition [MACP] No. 154/2003.
2. The claimants/parents of the deceased, namely, Arvind Babasaheb Bansode approached the Tribunal seeking compensation towards accidental death of their son in an accident dated 21/01/2003. The claimants contend that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09/K-8283. The claimants contend that the deceased-Arvind was engaged on tanker bearing registration No. MH-04/H-2854 as a Cleaner. When the tanker reached in the vicinity of Sangamner, a truck bearing registration No. MP-09/K-8283 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the tanker. The deceased-Arvind had suffered fatal injuries in the said accident. The claimants also contend that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of truck driver. It was owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. The deceased was aged about 18 years and getting monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-per month. The claimants/parents were depended on his income. The respondent no.2 / insurer appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the insured truck was not holding valid licence. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him. The charge of driving the insured vehicle without valid authorization i.e. under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] has been incorporated in the charge-sheet. Apart from statutory defence, the contentions on merit were also refuted. The Tribunal, after recording of the evidence and hearing of the parties, passed an award for Rs. 1,50,000/-in favour of the claimants directing respondent no.1 / owner of the truck to pay the compensation and the claim petition came to be dismissed against respondent no.2/insurer by accepting the defence of breach of condition of the policy.
3. Mr. Bade-Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal recorded erroneous finding on the point of breach of condition of the policy in absence of the evidence. He would submit that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation by applying settled principles of assessment of compensation. The multiplier is also wrongly applied. Nothing is awarded towards future prospects. He would further submit that paltry sum has been awarded towards non-pecuniary heads.
4. Per contra, Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid licence and exonerated the insurance company by accepting the defence of breach of condition of the policy. He would submit that the accident occurred in the year 2003, therefore in absence of income proof, the Tribunal considered the notional income @ Rs. 3000/-per month and passed just and proper award, which need not be disturbed.
5. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it is evident that there is no dispute of the accidental death of son of the claimants. There is no dispute that the deceased was a victim of the accident attributable to fault of the truck driver, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. The Tribunal accepted the defence of the insurer on the point of breach of policy for the reason that the driver was charged for driving the vehicle without holding the valid driving licence. The insurer relied upon the judgm........