Rajiv Sharma, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the award dated 23.11.2013 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla in MAC Petition No. 71-S/2 of 2012/11. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents-claimants have filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla claiming Rs. 15 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12%. According to the averments contained in the claim petition, deceased Kartar Singh was working as a labourer/helper in the ill-fated vehicle for loading and unloading of material. On 28.11.2010 at about 12.15 A.M., deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the course of his employment. When the vehicle reached near Chyalli Mour, Village Gondo, it rolled down into a gorge and deceased was crushed and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 28.11.2010. FIR No. 144/2010 dated 28.11.2010 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan. According to the claimants, they are legal heirs of deceased. Late Sh. Kartar Singh was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary from his employer. He was also earning Rs. 50,000/- per annum by selling vegetables etc. grown on irrigated land. He was the only bread earner of the claimants.
2. The claim petition was resisted by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and appellant, i.e. Insurance Company. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla framed issues on 10.10.2012. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,57,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the final realization of the amount. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, ultimately liability was fixed on appellant being insurer of the vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma has vehemently argued that the deceased was gratuitous passenger. The Driver was not holding the valid driving licence. According to him, the truck in question has been transferred by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 6, thus, there was no privy of contract. He also argued that proper multiplier has not been applied. He lastly contended that the income of the deceased has not been assessed correctly.
4. PW-1 Raman Kumar has proved the copy of FIR No. 144/10 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. PW-2 Nirmala Devi has deposed that her husband was working as labourer in the ill-fated vehicle and was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month.
6. PW-3 Hari Singh has stated the manner in which the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver.
7. PW-4 Dr. Parvinder Singh has proved post-mortem report of deceased Ex. PW-4/A.
8. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. First Information Report to this effect was also registered bearing FIR No. 144/10. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years. According to PW-2 Nirmala Devi, he was being paid Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to PW-5 Anil Kumar, his father was cleaner in the tipper. He was also doing the work of loading and unloading. According to him, his father was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was also growing seasonal vegetables. Respondent No. 6 Ram Rattan while appearing as RW-3 has testified that he was paying Rs. 8,000/- as salary and Rs. 50/- was paid as daily to the deceased. He has also admitted that he was keeping records of income and expenditure, however, no such record was produced. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month by taking into consideration the income which was bound to increase in future by 30%. The multiplier of 14 at the age of 45 cannot be said to be on higher side.
9. Now, as far as the driving licence is concerned, it has come in the statement of respondent No. 6 that he had employed the driver after taking trial. He was competent to drive the vehicle. He had verified the driving licence of the driver vide Ex. RW-3/A. He was authorized to drive MMV/HMV with effect from 22.6.2010. The accident has taken place on 28.11.2010. Statements of RW-2 RX. Sharma and RW-4 Kamal Narain have rightly been discarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The investigation has been carried at the back of the claimants. It was necessary for the insurance company to prove the report Ex. RW-4/A by leading documentary evidence.
10. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. It has come in the statement of PW-2 Nirmala Devi and PW-5 Anil Kumar that the deceased was employed as labourer in the tipper of respondent No. 6. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have admitted in their pleadings that the deceased was employed as a driver. Respondent No. 6 while appearing as RW-3 has categorically admitted that deceased was employed as labourer. The report Ex. RW-4/A on this issue cannot be held to be conclusive. RW-3 owner of the vehicle has proved insurance policy Ex. RW-3/B and copy of registration certificate Ex. RW-3/C. The vehicle in question was insured. The driver was holding valid driving licence. The fitness certificate has also been proved by the owner. The vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 4 Pawan Sharma. The insurance policy was also in the name of respondent No. 4. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly held that since respondent No. 4 was the registered owner, respondents No. 5 and 6 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, ultimate liability has rightly been fixed on the appellant-insurance company, being insurer of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.
