JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. Decision: 1. Present appeal is filed against award dated 31.08.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track Court Una (H.P.) announced in M.A.C. Petition No.14/09 title Rajveer Kaur and others Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others. Brief facts of case: 2. Rajveer Kaur and others filed petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 pleaded therein that on dated 10.03.2009 deceased Major Singh s/o Sh. Balkar Singh alongwith pillion rider Mandeep Singh s/o Sh. Hardeep Singh were travelling on motor cycle No.A/F. It is pleaded that at about 5.30 PM when motor cycle No.A/F reached near petrol pump at village Baruhi Tehsil Amb Distt. Una (H.P.) a truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281 came from opposite side which was driven in rash and negligent manner by co-respondent No.1 without observing traffic rules. It is further pleaded that truck struck with the motorcycle and deceased as well as pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries on their body and deceased became unconscious. It is further pleaded that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HP-12A-9281 driven by Naresh Kumar s/o Sh. Dharam Pal. It is further pleaded that after accident deceased was shifted to Regional Hospital Una by local people in unconscious condition where deceased was medically examined by Medical Officer. It is further pleaded that after first aid deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh for better treatment. It is further pleaded that deceased was admitted in PGI where he remained admitted w.e.f. 11.03.2009 to 12.03.2009 and died on 12.03.2009 at about 9.00 PM in PGI. It is further pleaded that petitioners have spent about Rs.50,000/- on the treatment of deceased and postmortem of deceased was conducted at PGI on 13.03.2009 vide postmortem report No.12979. It is further pleaded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by co-respondent No.1. Age of the deceased pleaded as 25 years. Occupation of deceased pleaded as agriculture and monthly income of the deceased pleaded as Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs.5,000/- per month by way of selling milk. It is further pleaded that FIR No.35/2009 dated 10.03.2009 under sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered. It is further pleaded that deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries on various parts of the body including head injury. It is further pleaded that FIR No.35/2009 dated 10.03.2009 under sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered. It is further pleaded that deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries on various parts of the body including head injury. It is further pleaded that petitioners No.1 & 2 are children and petitioner No.3 is widow and petitioners No.4 & 5 are mother and father of deceased respectively. Compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing petition till its realization sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-respondents No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that present claim petition is not maintainable and petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that false case under sections 279/337/304A IPC registered against co-respondent No.1. It is further pleaded that motorcycle which was driven by deceased was coming from Amb side in rash and negligent manner and struck with backside of truck. Death of deceased is admitted. It is further pleaded that death was caused due to own negligence of deceased. Prayer for dismissal of appeal sought. 4. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-respondent No.3 pleaded therein that petitioners have no cause of action. It is pleaded that deceased himself was driving motorcycle. It is pleaded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by deceased. It is further pleaded that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that driver of alleged vehicle No.HP-12A-9281 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that vehicle was used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Prayer for dismissal of appeal sought. 5. As per pleadings of parties learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues on dated 23.02.2010: (1) Whether deceased Major Singh died because of rash and negligent driving of truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281 driven by Naresh Kumar corespondent No.1 on dated 10.03.2009 at about 5.30 PM at village Baruhi? …….OPP. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation if so how much and from whom? ……OPP (3) Whether petition is not maintainable? ……..OPR. (4) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ……..OPR. (5) Whether driver of truck No.HP-12A-9281 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so its effect?……..OPR. …….OPP. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation if so how much and from whom? ……OPP (3) Whether petition is not maintainable? ……..OPR. (4) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ……..OPR. (5) Whether driver of truck No.HP-12A-9281 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so its effect?……..OPR. (6) Whether vehicle in question was used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy?……..OPR. (7) Relief. 6. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided issues No.1 & 2 in affirmative and decided issues No.3, 4, 5 & 6 in negative. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the petition and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,01,000/- jointly and severally. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also awarded interest @7% per annum from the date of filing petition till realization. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal further held that insurance company being insurer of the truck is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner of the vehicle with regard to compensation. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal further directed that compensation will be shared by the petitioners equally. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal further directed that share of minor petitioners would be deposited in Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal insurance company filed present petition under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988. 7. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination: (1) Whether appeal filed by insurance company is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? (2) Relief. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 9. PW-1 HC Puran Bhagat has stated that he has brought the summoned record and copy of FIR is Ext.PW1/1 which is correct as per original record. He has stated that challan was filed in the Court on 27.06.2009. He has denied suggestion that false FIR registered. 10. PW-2 Smt. Gurpreet Kaur has tendered into evidence affidavit Ext.PW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 10.03.2009 her deceased husband namely Major Singh was travelling upon motorcycle. There is further recital in the affidavit that at about 5.30 evening when deceased reached near Petrol Pump Baruhi then truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281 came from opposite side in fast speed and in negligent manner. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 10.03.2009 her deceased husband namely Major Singh was travelling upon motorcycle. There is further recital in the affidavit that at about 5.30 evening when deceased reached near Petrol Pump Baruhi then truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281 came from opposite side in fast speed and in negligent manner. There is further recital in the affidavit that Naresh Kumar was driving truck No.HP-12A- 9281 in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and struck with motorcycle. There is further recital in the affidavit that husband of deceased fell down upon road and sustained grievous injuries. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased became unconscious. There is further recital in the affidavit that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HP-12A-9281. There is further recital in the affidavit that injured was brought to Una hospital for medical treatment and thereafter deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh for medical treatment. There is further recital in the affidavit that husband of deponent remained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 11.03.2009 to 12.03.2009. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 12.03.2009 at 9.00 PM husband of deceased died. There is further recital in the affidavit that petitioners have spent Rs.50,000/- upon medical treatment of deceased. There is further recital in the affidavit that postmortem of deceased was conducted. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has two minor daughters. There is further recital in the affidavit that Gurdeep Kaur and Balkar Singh are mother-in-law and father-in-law of deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent is owner of 80 kanals of land and is also owner of truck. There is further recital in the affidavit that profession of deceased was agriculture. There is further recital in the affidavit that all the petitioners were dependent upon deceased. In crossexamination PW-2 has stated that accident did not take place in her presence. She has stated that she has no documentary evidence relating to income of deceased. She has stated that she is not in possession of any pass book issued by the bank. She has stated that her deceased husband was truck driver. She has stated that land is in ownership of her father-in-law. She has stated that she has two brothers-in-law also. She has denied suggestion that she has claimed excessive compensation. 11. PW-3 Sh. She has stated that she is not in possession of any pass book issued by the bank. She has stated that her deceased husband was truck driver. She has stated that land is in ownership of her father-in-law. She has stated that she has two brothers-in-law also. She has denied suggestion that she has claimed excessive compensation. 11. PW-3 Sh. Mandeep Singh has tendered into evidence affidavit Ext.PW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 10.03.2009 he was travelling with deceased upon motorcycle. There is further recital in the affidavit that at about 5.30 evening when motorcycle reached near Petrol Pump Baruhi then truck having registration No.HP-12A- 9281 came from opposite side in fast speed and in negligent manner and struck with motorcycle. There is further recital in the affidavit that due to accident deceased sustained injuries upon his head and other parts of body. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent also sustained injuries. There is further recital in the affidavit that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased was not at fault. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased Major Singh died due to accident. In cross-examination he has denied suggestion that motorcycle was driven in fast speed. He has also denied suggestion that deceased could not control motorcycle. He has denied suggestion that deceased died due to his own negligence. 12. RW-1 Sh. Naresh Kumar has tendered into evidence affidavit Ext.RW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 10.03.2009 he was driving truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased struck his motorcycle from the back portion of truck. There is further recital in the affidavit that accident took place due to fault of motorcycle driver. There is further recital in the affidavit that driver was holding valid licence. He has admitted that investigating agency visited the spot. He has admitted that case under sections 279/304A IPC is pending against him before criminal Court. He has admitted that his truck was taken into possession by investigating agency. He has denied suggestion that he was not in possession of valid driving licence. He has denied suggestion that he has obtained false licence from Mathura. He has denied suggestion that he has got renewed driving licence in illegal manner. He has admitted that his truck was taken into possession by investigating agency. He has denied suggestion that he was not in possession of valid driving licence. He has denied suggestion that he has obtained false licence from Mathura. He has denied suggestion that he has got renewed driving licence in illegal manner. 13. RW-2 Sh. Shiv Dayal has tendered into evidence affidavit Ext.RW2/A. He has stated that copy of route permit is Ext.RW2/B. He has stated that he is owner of truck having registration No.HP-12A-9281. He has stated that driver told him that accident took place due to fault of driver of motorcycle. He has stated that truck was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 19.10.2008 to 18.10.2009. 14. Following documents filed by parties: (1) Ext.PW-1/A is first information report. (2) Ext.PW-2/A is post mortem report of deceased. (3) Ext.RW-1/A is driving licence. (4) Ext.P-1 is identity card issued by Election Commission of India. (5) Ext.P-2 is copy of revenue record. (6) Ext.P-3 is copy of certificate of registration. (7) Ext.RW-2/A is copy of certificate of registration. (8) Ext.RW-2/B is copy of route permit. (9) Ext.RW-2/C is copy of insurance policy. (10) Ext.RX is copy of insurance policy. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that driver of truck No.HP-12A-9281 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.5 was upon insurance company. No official on behalf of insurance company 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. See AIR 1999 Apex Court 1441 Vidyadhar Vs. Mankikrao & Another. Also see AIR 1994 Apex Court 1341 Ishwarbhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera and another. Hence plea of insurance company that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.6 was upon insurance company. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.6 was upon insurance company. No official on behalf of insurance company 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. Plea of insurance company that vehicle involved in accident was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Petitioners have impleaded driver of truck No.HP-12A-9281 and owner of truck as co-party in present petition. Petitioners have also impleaded insurance company as co-party in present petition. It is held that petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that accident took place due to fault of driving of motorcycle by deceased is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW-3 Sh. Mandeep Singh eye witness of the accident has specifically stated that deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HP-12A-9281. Testimony of PW-3 Sh. Mandeep Singh is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Mandeep Singh. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW-3 Sh. Mandeep Singh has hostile animus against the owner and driver of truck No.HP-12A-9281. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that excessive compensation is awarded to petitioners and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.3600/- per month. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has detected 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed dependency of petitioners to the tune of Rs.2400/- per month. Age of deceased at the time of death was 25 years. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.3600/- per month. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has detected 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed dependency of petitioners to the tune of Rs.2400/- per month. Age of deceased at the time of death was 25 years. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17 in accordance with law. See 2009 (6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, See AIR 2013 SCW 3120 Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has committed grave illegality by way of not summoning licencing clerk from Mathura is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. On dated 10.02.2011 dealing clerk of RLA Una was present but learned Advocate V.K. Dharmani appearing on behalf of insurance company has given statement that he does not want to examine dealing clerk RLA Una as per separate statement placed on record. Licence was renewed from Licencing Authority Una. It is held that insurance company did not examine official of Licencing Authority Una who has renewed licence. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly closed evidence of insurance company. No satisfactorily explanation given by insurance company that why insurance company did not examine licencing clerk Una when he was present in the Court on 10.02.2011. It is well settled law that when licence is renewed by the competent authority in accordance with law then insurance company is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner of the vehicle relating to third party claim. In the present case it is proved on record that truck No.HP-12A-9281 was duly insured with insurance company as per insurance policy Ext.RX placed on record w.e.f. 19.10.2008 to 18.10.2009 and premium to the tune of Rs.14,038/- was also received by insurance company relating to vehicle No.HP-12A-9281. It is held that insurance company is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against third party claim. See AIR 2003 Apex Court 1292 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru, See AIR 2014 Apex Court 305 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 21. See AIR 2003 Apex Court 1292 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru, See AIR 2014 Apex Court 305 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 21. In view of findings upon point No.1 present appeal filed by insurance company is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith alongwith certified copy of the decision. FAO No.441/2011-D is disposed of. Pending application (s) if any also disposed of.