JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. - Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 9.11.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Sirmour District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 61-MAC/2 of 2007 title Jai Parkash and another v. Santosh Devi and others. Brief facts of the case: 2. Sh Jai Parkash minor aged 12 years son of Sh. Devinder Dutt and Smt. Krishna Devi mother of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 pleaded therein that on dated 30.6.2003 at village Chabahan Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour HP deceased namely Devinder Dutt aged 32 years was travelling in tractor No. HP-16-1099 as labourer in tractor and when tractor reached near village Chabahan Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour HP accident took place and deceased namely Devinder Dutt died due to accident of vehicle. Monthly income of deceased Devinder Dutt pleaded as Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) per month. It is pleaded that FIR No. 127 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003 was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. It is pleaded that postmortem of deceased was conducted. It is pleaded that deceased died on the way after accident and petitioners have spent more than Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) for funeral of deceased. It is pleaded that compensation to the tune of Rs. 500000/- (Five lacs) along with interest @ 12% per annum sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of correspondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that tractor was involved in the accident and Sh. Devinder Dutt had expired in accident. It is denied that tractor was driven in rash and negligent manner. It is pleaded that tractor No. HP-16-1099 was driven in slow speed and suddenly some defect developed in vehicle which resulted in brake failure and accident took place. 4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of co-respondent No.3 pleaded therein that driver of tractor No. HP-16-1099 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that petitioners have not approached learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with clean hands and suppressed material facts from learned Tribunal. It is pleaded that present petition is filed in collusion with co-respondents No.1 and 2. It is further pleaded that vehicle was plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that petitioners have not approached learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with clean hands and suppressed material facts from learned Tribunal. It is pleaded that present petition is filed in collusion with co-respondents No.1 and 2. It is further pleaded that vehicle was plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further pleaded that deceased was gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that deceased Devinder Dutt was the husband of corespondent No.1 namely Santosh Devi and petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioners have also filed petition under Workmen Compensation Act 1923 which was dismissed in default on dated 29.4.2005. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 5. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues on 1.1.2007. 1. Whether Devinder Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident involving tractor No. HP-16-1099 owned by respondent No.1 and being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash or negligent manner on dated 30.6.2003 near village Chabahan as alleged?. …OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners being L.Rs of deceased are entitled to receive compensation if so to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? …OPR-3 4. Whether petitioners have not approached Tribunal with clean hands as alleged?.…OPR-3 5. Whether petition has been filed by petitioners in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 as alleged? …OPR-3 6. Whether petition is not maintainable in present form as alleged? …OPR-3 7. Whether vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? ..OPR-3 8. Whether deceased was gratuitous passenger in vehicle as alleged? …OPR-3 9. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? …OPR-3. 10. Relief. 6. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided issue No.1 in affirmative. Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 2 to the effect that petitioners are legal heirs/dependants of deceased Devinder Dutt. Learned Tribunal held that petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. Learned Tribunal decided issues No. 3 to 8 in affirmative. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.9 in negative. Learned Tribunal dismissed the petition filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 7. Learned Tribunal held that petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. Learned Tribunal decided issues No. 3 to 8 in affirmative. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.9 in negative. Learned Tribunal dismissed the petition filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 7. Feeling aggrieved against award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appellants filed present appeal. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Relief. 10. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 10.1 PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi has filed affidavit Ext PW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that deceased Devinder Dutt was her son who was travelling in tractor No. HP-16-1099 on dated 30.6.2003 as labourer. There is further recital in affidavit that when tractor reached at place Chabahan then accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that deceased sustained injuries in accident and died. There is further recital in affidavit that FIR No. 127 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003 was registered in police station Nahan and postmortem of deceased was also conducted at civil hospital Nahan. There is further recital in affidavit that at the time of death the age of deceased was 32 years and his monthly income was Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) per month. There is further recital in affidavit that co-petitioner No.1 is minor son of deceased aged 12 years. There is further recital in affidavit that petitioners were dependent upon deceased. There is further recital in affidavit that Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) was spent upon death ceremony of deceased. PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi also tendered postmortem report Ext PW1/B in evidence. She has denied suggestion in cross examination that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor. She has stated that corespondent No.1 is widow of deceased. She has admitted that she was not present at the spot at the time of accident. She has stated that co-petitioner No. 1 is studying in school and is also residing with her. She has denied suggestion that she was not dependent upon deceased at the time of accident. She has stated that corespondent No.1 is widow of deceased. She has admitted that she was not present at the spot at the time of accident. She has stated that co-petitioner No. 1 is studying in school and is also residing with her. She has denied suggestion that she was not dependent upon deceased at the time of accident. She has denied suggestion that deceased was not travelling in tractor as labourer. She has denied suggestion that deceased was travelling in tractor as owner of tractor. She has denied suggestion that she did not spend Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) upon death ceremony of deceased. She has denied suggestion that she has filed present claim petition in collusion with co-respondents No.1 and 2. 10.2 PW2 HC Om Parkash has stated that he was posted as investigating officer in police station Nahan since June 2008 and he has brought summoned record. He has stated that FIR No. 127 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003 was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC in police station Nahan against driver Govind Ram corespondent No.2. He has stated that copy of FIR is Ext PW2/A which is correct as per original record. 10.3. RW1 Gain Singh record keeper has stated that he is posted as record keeper in general record room since 2008 and he has brought summoned record. He has stated that case No. 2 of 2004 title Krishna Devi v. Santosh Devi was decided on 29.4.2005 under Workmen compensation act 1923. He has stated that copy of petition is Ext RW1/A, copy of response is Ext RW1/B, copy of statement is Ext RW1/C and copy of order dated 29.4.2005 is Ext RW1/D. He has stated that copy of FIR is Ext PW2/A. He has stated that copy of post mortem is Ext PW1/8. 10.4 RW2 Sh Tota Ram has stated that he is posted as licence clerk at Rajgarh since 2003 and he has brought summoned record. He has stated that as per record licence No. 261-SDM/R/2001 was issued in favour of Govind Ram w.e.f. 20.2.2001 to 19.2.2004 for driving LMV vehicle. He has stated that endorsement relating to LTV was endorsed in driving licence on 17.4.2004 which was valid up to 16.4.2007. He has stated that copy of licence is Ext RW2/A which is correct as per original record. He has stated that endorsement relating to LTV was endorsed in driving licence on 17.4.2004 which was valid up to 16.4.2007. He has stated that copy of licence is Ext RW2/A which is correct as per original record. He has stated that tractor No. HP-16-1099 was registered in the office and copy of registration certificate is Ext RW2/B. 11. Following documentaries evidence adduced by parties. (1) Ext PW1/B is post mortem report of deceased Devinder Dutt aged 32 years and as per post mortem report deceased died due to shock because of multiple injuries sustained by him upon skull bone. (2) Ext PW2/A is the copy of FIR No. 127 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003 registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC in police station Nahan. (3) Ext PX is legal heir certificate of deceased Devinder Dutt issued by Naib Tehsildar Pachhad. (4) Ext RW1/A is the application filed by Krishna Devi and Jai Parkash under Workmen compensation act 1923. (5) Ext RW1/B is the response filed relating to petition filed under Workmen compensation act 1923. (6) Ext RW1/C is the statement of Krishna Devi. (7) Ext RW1/D is the order passed by Commissioner under Workmen compensation act 1923 and petition was dismissed in default on 29.4.2005. (8) Ext RW2/A is the driving licence of Govind Ram to drive LMV vehicle. (9) Ext RW2/B is the certificate of registration of vehicle No. HP-16-1099. (10) Ext RX is policy package (11) Ext RY is cover note of insurance policy which was effective w.e.f. 3.4.2003 to 2.4.2004 and premium to the tune of Rs. 5203/- (Five thousand two hundred three) was also obtained relating to vehicle involved in accident. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Sh. Devinder Dutt died on account of injuries sustained by him in accident involving tractor No. HP-16-1099 owned by co-respondent No.1 is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed response to petition filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. They have admitted that deceased Devinder Dutt had expired in accident. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved as per section 58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed response to petition filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. They have admitted that deceased Devinder Dutt had expired in accident. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved as per section 58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi has filed affidavit Ext PW1/A and there is recital in affidavit Ext PW1/A placed on record that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HP-16-1099. No counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents in present case. Affidavit filed by PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi remained un-rebutted on record. Even as per postmortem report Ext PW1/B placed on record deceased had died due to multiple injuries upon skull bone and other injuries. No official on behalf of co-respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box for the purpose of cross examination. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance company. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 title Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another. Also see AIR 1999 SC 1341 title Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera and another. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that co-petitioner No.1 is the minor son aged 12 years of deceased Devinder Dutt and co-petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased and both were dependent upon deceased at the time of accident and they are legally entitled for compensation under Motor vehicles act 1988 is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. When petition was filed at that time age of co-petitioner No.1 Jai Parkash was 12 years and the age of co-petitioner No.2 Smt. Krishna Devi was 55 years. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to protect the interest of minor. Testimony of PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi is corroborated by PW2 HC Om Parkash and also corroborated by documentaries evidence i.e. postmortem report Ext PW1/B and FIR Ext PW2/A placed on record. Affidavit filed by PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit Ext PW1/A filed by Smt. Krishna Devi. It is held that appellants are legally entitled for compensation under section 166 of Motor vehicles act 1988. 14. Affidavit filed by PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit Ext PW1/A filed by Smt. Krishna Devi. It is held that appellants are legally entitled for compensation under section 166 of Motor vehicles act 1988. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No. 3 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box for the purpose of cross examination in order to prove issue No.3. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance Company. Even as per certificate of registration relating to vehicle No. HP-16-1099 placed on record the un-laden weight of the vehicle was 1350 Kg. Hence it is held that vehicle involved in accident falls within the definition of light motor vehicle as defined under section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It was held in case reported in 2015 (2) SCC 186 Kulwant Singh and others v. Oriental Insurance Company that driver who hold valid and effective driving to drive light motor vehicle is not required to have endorsement to drive light commercial vehicle. In the present case accident took place on 30.6.2003 and as per testimony of RW2 Tota Ram licencing clerk the driver was legally competent to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) w.e.f. 20.2.2001 to 19.2.2004. In view of testimony of RW2 Tota Ram placed on record and in view of ruling cited supra it is held that driver of the vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence the time of accident. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that appellants have not approached learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with clean hands and they have suppressed material facts that they have filed separate petition under Workmen compensation act 1923 and same was dismissed in default on 29.4.2005 and on this ground subsequent petition filed under Motor vehicles act 1988 is not maintainable is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the order of Commissioner under Workmen compensation act 1923. Court has carefully perused the order of Commissioner under Workmen compensation act 1923. Learned Commissioner under Workmen compensation act 1923 has dismissed petition in default filed by Smt. Krishna Devi and minor Jai Parkash on dated 29.4.2009 vide document Ext RW1/D placed on record. It is proved on record that Commissioner under Workmen compensation act 1923 did not pass any award in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi and minor Jai Parkash. It is also proved on record that Smt. Krishna Devi and minor Jai Parkash did not receive any compensation under Workmen compensation act 1923. In view of the fact that petitioners did not receive any compensation under Workmen compensation act 1923 and petition filed under Workmen compensation act 1923 was dismissed in default and was not dismissed upon merits it is held that subsequent petition under Motor vehicles act 1988 is not barred. It is held that compensation cannot be claimed in both forums simultaneously. It is held that claimant at any stage before final adjudication of claim in particular forum could exercise the choice of abandoning claim in one forum and may prosecute in other forum. See AIR 1990 MP 87 title K.K.Jain and another v. Smt. Masroor Anwar and others. See 1990 ACJ 178 AP Ogeti Pedda Ranganna v. Zalekha Bee. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that petition has been filed by petitioners in collusion with Smt. Santosh Devi and Govind Ram and on this ground appeal be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove on issue No.5 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box in order to prove issue No.5. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance Company and issue No.5 is decided against Insurance Company. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that vehicle in question was plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.7 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box in order to prove issue No.7. Onus to prove issue No.7 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box in order to prove issue No.7. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance Company and issue No.7 is decided against Insurance Company. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.8 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box in order to prove issue No.8. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance Company and issue No.8 is decided against Insurance Company. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.9 was upon Insurance Company. No official on behalf of Insurance Company personally appeared in witness box in order to prove issue No.9. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against Insurance Company and issue No.9 is decided against Insurance Company. 20. In view of above stated facts it is held that appellants are legally entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Monthly income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) per month. After deducting ?rd personal expenses of deceased dependency of appellants is assessed as Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) per month. Age of deceased at the time of death was 32 years. Multiplier of 17 is applied in the present case. See 2009 (6) SCC 121 title Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. See AIR 2013 SCW 3120 title Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and others. Following compensation is awarded under Motor Vehicle Act to appellants. (A) Compensation for loss of dependency awarded. Rs. 4,08,000=00 (Four lacs eight Thousand) (B) Compensation for funeral expenses awarded. Rs. 10,000=00 (Ten thousand) (C) Compensation for loss of love and affection awarded. Rs.10,000=00 (Ten thousand) (D) Compensation for medical expenses awarded. Nil. (As no medical certificate placed on record.) (E) Total compensation amount awarded. Rs. 4,28,000=00 (Four lacs twenty eight thousand) 21. Rs. 4,08,000=00 (Four lacs eight Thousand) (B) Compensation for funeral expenses awarded. Rs. 10,000=00 (Ten thousand) (C) Compensation for loss of love and affection awarded. Rs.10,000=00 (Ten thousand) (D) Compensation for medical expenses awarded. Nil. (As no medical certificate placed on record.) (E) Total compensation amount awarded. Rs. 4,28,000=00 (Four lacs twenty eight thousand) 21. Insurance Company will deposit award amount within thirty days as required under section 168(3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Insurance Company is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner of vehicle because vehicle was duly insured with Insurance Company at the time of accident and the Insurance Company has received premium qua third party liability and Insurance Company is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner. Point No.1 is decided in favour of appellants. Point No.2(Final order). 22. In view of findings on point No.1 appeal is allowed. Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sirmour District at Nahan is set aside and compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 428000/- (Four lacs twenty eight thousand) is granted in favour of petitioners and against respondents along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of petition till realization. Insurance Company will pay award amount within thirty days as required under section 168(3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Interim compensation amount deposited by Insurance Company under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 will be adjusted in the final award. Award amount will be divided among appellants equally. Share of minor will be deposited in nationalised bank till minor attain age of majority. No order as to costs. File of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of decision. FAO No. 42 of 2010 is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of. Order Accordingly.