1. This Appeal From Order has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / IVth Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Claim Petition No. 61 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the claimants on account of the death of their son Amit Rai Chaudhary in a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Company seeks to assail the impugned award also questioning the computation of compensation.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 15.01.2007 at about 9:00 a.m., the deceased Amit Rai Chaudhary, aged about 22 years, was travelling in a three-wheeler (Auto) bearing registration No. UA-08-2806 for the purpose of going to his place of work. When the said vehicle reached near the Degree College turn at Kankhal, District Haridwar, it met with an accident and overturned on the road. As a result of the said accident, Amit Rai Chaudhary sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken for medical treatment to the District Government Hospital, Haridwar. Considering the gravity of his condition, he was referred to Jolly Grant Hospital; however, while being taken to the said hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claim petition was thereafter filed by the parents of the deceased, namely Deepak Rai Chaudhary and Smt. Anjana Rai Chaudhary, asserting that the deceased was a young, healthy individual and the sole support of the family.

3. It was submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, resulting in the untimely death of their son, causing immense mental agony and financial loss to the claimants. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 1, driven by respondent no. 2 at the relevant time, and was insured with respondent no. 4-Insurance Company. On these assertions, the claimants sought compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, proceeded to adjudicate the claim petition and ultimately passed the impugned award dated 01.03.2014, granting compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the claimants.

4. In the claim petition, the claimants asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Three Wheeler Auto No.UA-08-2806, which was being driven at a high speed and in an unsafe manner. It was pleaded that the deceased sustained fatal injuries directly attributable to the accident. The claimants further pleaded that the vehicle was insured, and that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. A claim for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest was made.

5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statements denying negligence and contending that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged. They further pleaded that the vehicle was being driven carefully and that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence.

6. The Insurance Company, in its written statement, raised preliminary objections including maintainability, alleged non-joinder of necessary parties, denial of negligence, and questioned the income, age, and dependency of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the accident was the result of the deceased's own negligence and that the claim petition was the outcome of collusion between the claimants and the vehicle owner. The Insurance Company also submitted that on the date of accident Vehicle No.UA-08-2806 did not possess a fitness certificate and the driver of the said vehicle also did not carry a valid driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation due to the breach of policy conditions.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudication:

          1) Whether on 15.01.2007 at about 9:00 a.m., due to overturning of three wheeler auto No. UA-08-2806 near the Degree College crossing, an accident occurred?

          2) Whether in the said accident, the son of the claimants, Amit Rai Chaudhary, sustained grievous injuries and died while being taken for treatment?

          3) Whether at the time, place and date of accident, the offending vehicle three wheeler auto No. UA-08- 2806 was insured with respondent no.4?

          4) Whether at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence?

          5) Whether at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven with valid and effective documents?

          6) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

8. While deciding Issue No. 1, the Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, including the testimony of the witnesses, FIR, site plan, post-mortem report and other medical documents, recorded a clear finding that the accident dated 15.01.2007 occurred in the manner pleaded in the claim petition. The Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident at the stated time and place and that the occurrence of the accident stood duly proved. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants.

9. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal examined whether the death of Amit Rai Chaudhary was the result of injuries sustained in the said accident. Upon consideration of the medical evidence, including treatment papers and post-mortem report, the Tribunal found that the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident and subsequently succumbed to those injuries while being taken for further treatment. The Tribunal thus held that there was a direct link between the accident and the death of the deceased. Issue No. 2 was accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.

10. While deciding Issue No. 3, the Tribunal considered the insurance policy produced on record and recorded a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent Insurance Company on the date of the accident. The validity of the insurance policy was not successfully disputed. Issue No. 3 was, therefore, decided against the Insurance Company.

11. On Issue No. 4, the Tribunal examined the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and, on appreciation of documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The plea raised by the Insurance Company regarding invalidity of the licence was rejected. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 was decided against the Insurance Company.

12. While deciding Issue No. 5, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was being driven with valid registration and other necessary documents at the time of the accident. No breach of statutory requirements was proved by the Insurance Company. Hence, Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the claimants.

13. On Issue No. 6, the Tribunal assessed the age, income and dependency of the deceased and, after applying the appropriate multiplier and deductions, computed the compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company.

14. The learned counsel for the appellate- Insurance Company argued that on the date of accident Vehicle No.UA-08-2806 did not possess a fitness certificate and the driver of the said vehicle also did not carry a valid driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation due to the breach of policy conditions. He further submitted that there is contributory negligence inasmuch as the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent - claimants has supported the finding of the learned Tribunal by submitting that the issuance of the fitness certificate on the very date of the accident conclusively establishes that the vehicle, upon due inspection by the competent authority, was found to be roadworthy. It is contended that such certification could not have been granted unless the vehicle satisfied the statutory requirements of fitness, and therefore, a reasonable presumption arises that the vehicle was fit for use at the relevant time. In absence of any cogent evidence led by the insurer to prove mechanical unfitness, mere reliance on the timing of issuance of the fitness certificate does not establish any breach of policy conditions.

16. Having heard and gone through the pleadings of the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has returned clear and well-reasoned findings on each of the issues framed, which are supported by the evidence adduced and do not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court has carefully examined the impugned award in the light of the pleadings, evidence and the issue-wise findings returned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded distinct and categorical findings on the occurrence of the accident, the causal link between the accident and the death of the deceased, the validity of the insurance cover, the driving licence of the driver, and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. Each of these findings is supported by oral and documentary evidence and does not suffer from any perversity or misapplication of law. The Tribunal has first found that the accident occurred in the manner pleaded and that the offending vehicle was involved at the stated time and place. It has thereafter independently examined the medical evidence and returned a clear finding that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and succumbed thereto. These findings are based on contemporaneous records including treatment papers and post-mortem report and warrant no interference. The Tribunal has also examined the insurance policy and the driving licence and has recorded findings that the offending vehicle was duly insured and that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The finding that the licence held by the driver authorised him to drive the offending vehicle is in consonance with the settled legal position governing light motor vehicles. The argument put forth by the Insurance Company that the certificate of fitness was obtained on the very same date establishes that upon inspection by the competent authority, the vehicle was found roadworthy. In absence of any evidence to show that the vehicle was mechanically defective or unfit at the time of accident, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the vehicle was roadworthy and capable of certification even at the time of accident. Mere timing of issuance of fitness certificate cannot be treated as conclusive proof of unfitness, particularly when the burden lies upon the insurer to establish breach of policy conditions. Therefore, no breach of policy conditions has been established from the record.

17. Furthermore, the record reflects that the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were duly impleaded before the Tribunal and the accident was found to have occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle alone. In such circumstances, the adjudication of the claim petition is not rendered defective on account of absence of any other party, nor is any prejudice shown to have been caused. The Tribunal has separately examined the occurrence of the accident and the cause of death and, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident in question and succumbed thereto. No material is borne out from the record to indicate any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding on negligence is thus based on evidence and warrants no interference. The proceedings, therefore, cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of non-joinder.

18. So far as the adjudication of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the age of the deceased as 22 years. In the absence of cogent documentary proof of income, the Tribunal adopted a notional annual income of Rs.36,000/-, which is reasonable having regard to the age of the deceased, the nature of work and the period of the accident. The deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, which is in accordance with settled principles. The Tribunal then applied a multiplier of 18, which is the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased. On the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal computed the annual dependency at Rs.18,000/- after deduction, and by applying the multiplier of 18, arrived at a loss of dependency of Rs.3,24,000/-. In addition thereto, amounts were awarded under conventional heads such as funeral expenses and loss to estate, keeping in view the law prevailing at the relevant time, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.3,39,000/-. The interest awarded at the rate of 7% per annum is also within reasonable limits. The Tribunal has thus applied the correct multiplier, made the proper deduction towards personal expenses, and awarded compensation under conventional heads in a manner consistent with the settled principles governing assessment of compensation. The computation is logical, proportionate and just. No material is borne out from the record to indicate contributory negligence, collusion, or any procedural irregularity affecting the adjudication of the claim.

19. This Court finds that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective, adhered to the legal principles applicable to motor accident claims, and passed a reasoned award. The impugned award does not disclose any error of law or perversity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Rs. 2,54,250 appears to be deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company before the claims tribunal pursuant to interim order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the court. Rest of the amount of compensation shall be deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company before the claims tribunal within 2 months from today along with interest up to date. The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to receive the compensation so deposited adjusting the compensation, if any, already received.