JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All these three appeals pertain to the same accident, hence are being adjudicated by this common judgment, more so, because the evidence and the facts, as have been highlighted by the Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat in judgment dated 15.05.2009 (under challenge in A.O. nos.265/2009 and 280/2009) and those, as have been highlighted in the judgment of the Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, dated 22.03.2012 (under challenge in A.O. no.149/2012), are so intermingled together as to warrant the fitness for adjudication together. 2. Marshal Jeep no.UP25-8921 driven by Mr. Tajamul, and jeep no.UP03-3382 driven by Mr. Mohd. Zubaid, dashed from in front. As the result of this accident, Keshav Ram, boarded in Jeep no.UP03-3382, was seriously injured inasmuch as his admission to the nursing home and the higher medical hospital and ultimately, resulted into his right leg amputation with 80 percent disability certificate. 3. On the other hand, one Mukesh Chandra, who was a passenger in jeep no.UP25-8921, was also injured to some extent. Jeep No.UP03-3382 was owned by Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt. When the claim petitions were tried and adjudicated by the Tribunal, manned by two different judges, Mr. Keshav Ram was awarded the total compensation to the tune of Rs.6,42,800/- accepting his 80% disability, as has been stated above, while injured Mukesh Chandra was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.32,404/-. Both the Judges of Tribunal held that since the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver Mr. Mohd. Zubaid, and he was driving the same without having any valid driving licence and all the more, without having any permit. So, the entire responsibility to pay compensation was fastened upon the vehicle owner Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt, but instantly, the Oriental Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to Keshav Ram with a right to recover the same against Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt. 4. With the facts, as have been stated above, Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the award in Appeal No. 265 of 2009 seeking its exoneration at all from any liability to pay while Sri Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt has preferred two Appeals bearing No.280/2009 and 149/2012, seeking his absolvere from any liability to pay. 5. 4. With the facts, as have been stated above, Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the award in Appeal No. 265 of 2009 seeking its exoneration at all from any liability to pay while Sri Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt has preferred two Appeals bearing No.280/2009 and 149/2012, seeking his absolvere from any liability to pay. 5. It is also pertinent to mention that Jeep no.8921 wherein Mukesh Chand was a passenger, was insured with the United India Insurance Company, whose counsel too has also been heard by this Court alongwith the counsel of all the affected persons. 6. Learned senior counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company has based his argument mainly on the premise that the company could not have been saddled with any liability if the driver of the vehicle did not have any valid driving licence. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Malla Prakasarao Vs. Malla Janaki & Others, (2004) 3 SCC, 343”, wherein, it was held if the driver of the vehicle did not have driving licence when the accident took place, then according to the terms of the contract, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle driven by a driver without a driving licence. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt has placed reliance upon the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2006), 7 SCC, 318’, wherein, it was held that where licence of driver subsequently found to be discrepant, in that case, if prior to appointing of the driver as such, owner of the vehicle having seen and examined his driving licence and, after taking the test of his driving, having found him competent to drive the vehicle, in such circumstances, the Apex Court opined that notwithstanding the fact that the licence of the said driver was later found not to have been issued by the licencing authority of the place concerned, even then, the Tribunal should not held the breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) M.V. Act. It was further held out that in such situation, insurer is not entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it for the motor accident caused by such driver. 8. The other precedent relied by the learned counsel for Mr. It was further held out that in such situation, insurer is not entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it for the motor accident caused by such driver. 8. The other precedent relied by the learned counsel for Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt is also of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 *, wherein, it was held that in case where the insurer’s defence is that the driver had fake driving licence at the time of accident in breach of conditions of policy, then it is not sufficient to avoid liability and the onus is still on the insurer to prove that owner of vehicle driven by the driver failed to take reasonable care in employing a qualified and competent driver having valid licence. If the owner exercised reasonable care, he need not further verify genuineness of licence from licencing authority before appointing a driver, except where at the time of insurance of vehicle or thereafter insurer required owner to make such verification or where insurer draws owner’s attention that driver’s licence was fake. 9. Learned senior counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company then drew the attention of this Court towards the evidence and report of its Surveyor dated 01.01.2009 wherein he had verified the Driving Licence no.‘60974/PBT/07’ and it was not found in the name of Mr. Mohd Zubaid, whereas, the driving licence of Mr. Mohd. Zubaid is bearing the number as ‘60974/PBT/06’. Thus, I find the last digit of the licence is ‘07’ in the verification made by the surveyor while it is ‘06’ in the driving licence of Mr. Mohd. Zubaid, which has been submitted by Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt during the course of trial. Otherwise also, the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-said two precedents produced by learned counsel for Bhuwan Chand Bhatt appears to be quite convincing that every time an employer, who is going to engage a driver for his vehicle, is not supposed to rush to the transport office situated even in other city in order to verify the genuineness of the driving licence. This Court does not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver Mr. Mohd. Zubaid did not have any valid driving licence at the relevant time. 10. This Court does not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver Mr. Mohd. Zubaid did not have any valid driving licence at the relevant time. 10. Another contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the jeep no.UP03-3382 did not have any valid permit but this Court again does not agree with the said contention because the registration certificate of such vehicle was issued by the competent officer on 14.11.2003 with the remark that the permit will expire on 13.11.2008. So, it can be inferred that the permit was issued at the time of registration itself with effect from 14.11.2003 to 13.11.2008 i.e. for five years and the owner had an authority to ply the same in all the areas of Uttarakhand. The accident occurred on 04.06.2008 viz. the vehicle concerned had a valid permit on the date of accident. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded to Mr. Keshav Ram, it is true that disability in the body of a person may be of several kinds. Alongwith the percentage of disability, his earning capability left after the accident should be taken into consideration. Mr. Keshav Ram used to earn his livelihood by way of painting, which means that he had some skill and he was not simply a labourer. The Tribunal has assessed his income only Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month. Permanent amputation of his right leg has not been denied even by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, rather it was found verified that he remained hospitalized for quite a considerable time and his right leg was amputated. So, a person without having a right leg, would not be able to earn his livelihood even at the half vigour, which he would have earned with his two legs. So, the Tribunal has not committed any error in making the assessment of compensation to the extent of 80% disability. On that score, this Court does agree with the finding of the Tribunal. 12. However, I find that as per the norms laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of ‘15’ instead of ‘16’. This way, the loss of earning comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. 12. However, I find that as per the norms laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of ‘15’ instead of ‘16’. This way, the loss of earning comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. Learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied upon the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie & Another, 2005 (2), TAC, 297’, wherein, it was held as under: - “What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure.” 13. Hence, following the above precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court, one-third of the total income should be deducted for personal expenditure of the victim leaving remaining compensation as the loss of dependency towards the family members. After such deduction, the loss of earning comes to Rs.3,60,000/- i.e. (2/3rd of Rs.5,40,000/-). On rest of the scores, I feel no infirmity in the assessment made by the Tribunal. So, the compensation is reckoned as below:- 1. Rs.3,60,000/- for loss of earning. 2. Rs.32,000/- for medical expenses. 3. Rs.1,00,000/- physical and metal pain. 4. Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses even afterwards. Total Rs.5,42,000/- (Five Lakh & Forty Two Thousand only) 14. As regards the AO No.149 of 2012, the Tribunal has found that there was no contributory negligence so that to shift the liability on the Insurance Company of the Marshal Jeep no.8921, because when the matter was investigated by the police, charge-sheet was submitted against Mr. Mohd. Zubaid, the driver of the vehicle (UP03-3382) owned by Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt. So, this way, the liability to pay compensation to Mukesh Chandra to the tune of Rs.32,404/- is also shifted from Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt to the Oriental Insurance Company. 15. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, appeal no. 265 of 2009 moved by the Oriental Insurance Company is allowed in part with the modification as has been made hereinabove in the body of judgment. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt to the Oriental Insurance Company. 15. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, appeal no. 265 of 2009 moved by the Oriental Insurance Company is allowed in part with the modification as has been made hereinabove in the body of judgment. At the same time, Appeal nos.280 of 2009 and Appeal No.149 of 2012, moved by Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt, both are perfectly allowed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with the L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned. 17. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.