JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This MAC App, No. 04 (AP) 2021, is directed against the impugned judgment and award, dated 19.02.2021, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short, ‘MACT’), West Kameng District, Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh in M.A.C. Case/No.6/17. It is also to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and award, dated 19.02.2021, the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila has directed to pay a sum of Rs. 38,50,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount to the respondent No.1-Smti. Mebing Raje Bagang on account of death of her husband Late Tangum Bagang in the said accident. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly, stated as under:- “On receipt of one accident information 06.11.2015, at about 1745 hours, one police officer of Rupa Police Station rushed to place of occurrence i.e. Ramda Village, Thrizino Circle and on arriving at there he found that one Tata Sumo Gold vehicle, bearing registration No. AR-05-2843, with 11 passengers, including the driver Late Jarje Riang, which was coming from Naharlagun to Seppa had fell into the deep gorge from the road. And out of the 11 passengers, 7 (seven) passengers died on the spot and the remaining 4 (four) passengers sustained grievous injuries. The ill fated vehicle was in good condition before the accident and it was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the deceased driver had a valid driving license. Then, upon the said information, Rupa P.S. Case No. 32/2015, under Section 279/337/338/304 (A) IPC was registered and investigation was carried out which had culminated in submission of final report. The cause of accident was due to failure of steering and brake. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a claim petition before the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila and after receiving notice; the appellant herein contested the case by filing written statement. Thereafter, hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned Member, MACT Bomdila had passed the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2021, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 38,50,000/-along with interest @ Rs. 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing the petition, to the respondents herein. Thereafter, hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned Member, MACT Bomdila had passed the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2021, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 38,50,000/-along with interest @ Rs. 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing the petition, to the respondents herein. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award.” 4. Mr. B. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and award suffers from manifest illegality on two counts. Firstly, Mr. Ghosh submits that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila without considering the fact that the driver and owner of the vehicle had violated the condition of permit which was granted for carrying 9 (nine) passengers as mentioned in the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No.AR-05-2843, which is annexed with the appeal as Annexure-2. Secondly, Mr. Ghosh, submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed driving license of Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport category), but, the learned Member, MACT have not considered the said category of driving license of the driver which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-3, while awarding compensation. Mr. Ghosh, further, submits that terms and condition of insurance policy is violated and as such, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, West Kameng District, Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh is liable to be set aside. Mr. Ghosh however, has not disputed the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the learned member of the MACT at Rs.17,790/-. Mr. Ghosh has referred following three case laws in support of his submission:- (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-vs-Angad Kol & Others; reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 306; (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd.,-vs-Khagen Chandra Das and Others; reported in 2019 (1) T.A.C. 455 (Gau.); (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd.-vs-Parvathneni and Another; reported in 2009 (4) T.A.C. 382 (S.C.). 5. Per contra Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submission of Mr. Ltd.-vs-Angad Kol & Others; reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 306; (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd.,-vs-Khagen Chandra Das and Others; reported in 2019 (1) T.A.C. 455 (Gau.); (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd.-vs-Parvathneni and Another; reported in 2009 (4) T.A.C. 382 (S.C.). 5. Per contra Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submission of Mr. B. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the driver of the offending vehicle had possessed one Light Motor Vehicle driving license and as such he can drive transport vehicle also where the unladen weight of the vehicle is 7500 KG and since the unladen weight of the offending vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo was 1800 KG only, the driver is competent to drive the said vehicle. In support of his submission, Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent has referred the below mentioned case laws: (i) National Insurance CO. Ltd.-vs-Swaran Singh and Others; reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297; (ii) Shamanna and Another-vs-Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others; reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 ; (iii) Lakhmi Chand-vs-Reliance General Insurance; reported in (2016) Supreme Court Cases 100. 6. Mr. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that though the permit was for 9 (nine) passengers and the figure came to be 10, including the driver of the offending vehicle, and one of the passenger was 21/2 year old child was also travelling with his father and as such, the total number of persons though becomes 11 (eleven), yet, in fact, the child was on the lap of his father and as such, it cannot be said that there was over loading of the passengers. Mr. Perme, further submits that there is nothing on the record that the accident took place because of over loading and as per the materials available on record, the accident took place due to steering and brake failure and as the appellant failed to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and as such the appellant is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also I have gone through the impugned judgment and award of the learned Court below. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also I have gone through the impugned judgment and award of the learned Court below. It appears that the issues raised before this appeal were raised before the learned Court below also and the learned Court below had dealt with the same in Paragraph No. 17 of the judgment. While dealing with the issue of license held as under:- “17. As regards the issue No. 1, it appears that as per P.Ex.4, the driver was having driving license for M/Cycle and LMV. As per the claims of OP No.1, the driver must have been obtained license for driving commercial vehicles. In this regard, I have perused the certificate of registration, the P. Ex.5 as to know whether offending vehicle was a heavy commercial vehicle or a light commercial vehicle. As per P. Ex.5, the unladen/laden weight of the vehicle is 1800. Now, on going through the Section 2 (21) M.V. Act, upto 7500 Kg, comes under the category of light motor vehicle. As such in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.-vs-Rambha Debi & Ors; 2018 (2SCe journal 1155), the driver having valid license to drive LMV is not barred to drive transport vehicle of the category which is an unladen weight of 7500 Kg in terms of the MV Act and also judgment decided in Mukund Dewangan-vs-Oriental Insurance Co. CIVIL APPEAL NO.5826 OF 2011, With SLP [C] Nos.32828, 32833 and 32835/2010, 8709-8710 and 8712-8713/2014, 20072, 3300 and 3302/2015, 887-890/2013, 16082/2012, 28455-28456/2013, CA No. 6379/2013, SLP (C) Nos.13008, 15759-15760 and 14333-14334/2014, 6429/2015, 36364-36365/2014, 15924/2015, CA No.9990/14, SLP (C) Nos. 8704-8706/2014, CA Nos. 4068-4069/2012, SLP (C) No. 32827/2010 and CA No.8992/2012]. 18. Accordingly, it is crystal clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license at the time of accident and therefore, issues No.1 is decided in favour of the claimant. 8. Again while dealing with the issue No. 2, the learned Court below held in Paragraph No.20 that- “I have gone through the RC Book P. Ex.5 & Form Ar.P.MV 44 rule 62 (1) (IV) issued by the District Transport Officer, East Kameng District, Seppa for purpose of carrying passengers and luggage exhibited as P.Ex. 7. As per P.Ex. 8. Again while dealing with the issue No. 2, the learned Court below held in Paragraph No.20 that- “I have gone through the RC Book P. Ex.5 & Form Ar.P.MV 44 rule 62 (1) (IV) issued by the District Transport Officer, East Kameng District, Seppa for purpose of carrying passengers and luggage exhibited as P.Ex. 7. As per P.Ex. 5 (R.C. Book), the seating capacity of the vehicle is 9. Whereas, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle as per P. Ex.7 Form Ar.P.MV 44 rule 62(1) (IV) is 9+1=10. Therefore, it is understood that the seating capacity of the vehicle as per P. Ex.5 do not include the driver. The P. Ex. 7 is very clear that the seating capacity of the vehicle was 9+1=10 which includes the driver of the vehicle. Naturally, it is also understood that the vehicle never move without a driver and after seating of the driver, the vehicle moves on motion. As such, the seating capacity of the vehicle naturally comes without including the driver. Therefore, it is settled issue or fact that the seating capacity of the vehicle is 10 including the driver or 9 without including the driver. Another objection of the OP No.1 is that in the accident vehicle 11 persons were boarded which is violation of the rule. In order to settle this issue or facts, I have carefully gone through the enquiry accident report. On the basis of the enquiry report P. Ext. 2 one child of two and half years old was boarded in the accident vehicle. She was late Mai Tayeng, D/o Kano Tayeng, therefore, it cannot be said to be in violation of the Policy of P. Ex. 8”. 21. It is observed that the OP No.2 has not violated the policy bin any circumstances. It is also observed that the cause of accident, as per MVI report, is due to steering and brake failure. As such, the deceased had lost his life in the accident without any fault. Therefore the claimant is entitled to get adequate compensation for the loss of life of her husband and the insurance co. is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.” 9. While arriving at such a finding the learned member, also discussed two case laws-(i) S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr. Therefore the claimant is entitled to get adequate compensation for the loss of life of her husband and the insurance co. is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.” 9. While arriving at such a finding the learned member, also discussed two case laws-(i) S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr. Reported in AIR 2013 SC 2262 and (ii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Varial and Ors., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 . 10. I have carefully examined the findings recorded by the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila and also gone through the case laws relied upon by him and I find that the learned member MACT, Bomdila has not committed any illegality in arriving at such a finding, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent. It appears that unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 1800 Kg. The deceased driver had a license to drive LMV only. Then the definition of LMV, a vehicle weighing about 7000 Kg falls under this category. If a holder of driving license for driving a Light Motor Vehicle, he can very well drive the vehicle up to 7500 Kg and as such, it cannot be said that the driver and the insured has violated the terms and condition of insurance policy. 11. On the other hand, it appears that the permit of the offending vehicle was for carrying 10 passengers including the driver but it appears that the vehicle had carried 11 passengers and out of 11 passengers, one of the passenger is two and half years old child and she was travelling with his father and both of them suffered demise in the accident. Even, if we, consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver had carried one more passenger beyond capacity, yet, there is nothing on the record and no evidence has been adduced by the appellant that the alleged incident took place by over loading of the passengers or out of contravention to the provision of driving license, rather, there is material on record to show that the accident occurred out of steering and brake failure. Thus, the cause of accident has no reasonable nexus with the violation of the condition of the permit for carrying one more passenger. Thus, the cause of accident has no reasonable nexus with the violation of the condition of the permit for carrying one more passenger. In absence of such evidence on record, it cannot be held that the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila has committed any manifest illegality and impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and award. The law laid down in case of Swaran Singh (supra), is very much clear in this regard and the same has been holding the field presently. In Paragraph No. 89 and 90 of the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as under:- “89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in subsection h (2) of Section 10. They are ‘goods carriage', ‘heavy-goods vehicle', ‘heavy passenger motor-vehicle', ‘invalid carriage', ‘light motor-vehicle', ‘maxi-cab',’medium goods vehicle', ‘medium passenger motor-vehicle', ‘motor-cab', ‘motorcycle', ‘omnibus', ‘private service vehicle', ‘semitrailer', ‘tourist vehicle', ‘tractor', ‘trailer', and ‘transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motorcycle without gear', for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for ‘light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a ‘maxi-cab', ‘motor-cab' or ‘omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. In each case on evidence led before the tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” “90. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section(2) of section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.” 12. It is also apparent that no condition of the Insurance Policy appeared to have been violated here in this case. I have carefully gone through the judgments referred by Mr. B. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and I find that the ratio laid down in the said case laws would not come into his aid. I have also carefully gone through the case laws referred by Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent and I find that the ratio laid down in the said case laws fully endorsed his submission. 13. It is a fact that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the quantum of compensation, had fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.17,790/-(Rupees seventeen thousand seven hundred ninety) only on the basis of Salary Certificate issued by the employer. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant had not disputed the same. 14. Now, in view of the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranoy Sethi And Others, : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the calculation of the quantum of compensation is being worked out as under:- 14.1. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant had not disputed the same. 14. Now, in view of the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranoy Sethi And Others, : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the calculation of the quantum of compensation is being worked out as under:- 14.1. The deceased was 33 years old at the time of death, factum of which is not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranoy Sethi (supra), 50% of above has to be added as future prospect with respect to his age, as he was below 40 yrs. and he had a permanent job. After addition of 50%, the amount would be Rs.17,790 + Rs.8895 = Rs.26,685/-. The deceased was married. He left behind his wife/the claimant and one minor child and his mother to succeed his estate. Therefore, the deduction towards his personal expenses will be one third of above, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s case - (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and after deduction of one third, the amount would be Rs.26,685 -Rs.8,895 = Rs.17,790/-. The multiplier applicable here, in this case would be 16, since the deceased was 33 years old at the relevant time, and after application of the multiplier, the loss of dependency will be Rs. 17,790 x 12 x 16 = Rs.34,15,680/-. Besides, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranoy Sethi (supra), the claimant will entitle to a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/-being the funeral expenses, and also Rs.40,000/-being the consortium. Besides the award under conventional heads has to be increased by 10% and as three years have elapsed after the pronouncement of the said judgment. After addition of the said 10%, the amount under conventional heads i.e. loss of estate will be Rs. 1500+15,000=Rs.16,500/-, and funeral expenses will be Rs. 1500+15,000=16,500/-and loss of consortium will be Rs. 4000+40,000=44,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 34,92,680/-(Rupees thirty four lacs ninety two thousand six hundred eighty) only, and to our considered opinion, this amount would be the just and proper amount of compensation here in this case. 1500+15,000=Rs.16,500/-, and funeral expenses will be Rs. 1500+15,000=16,500/-and loss of consortium will be Rs. 4000+40,000=44,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 34,92,680/-(Rupees thirty four lacs ninety two thousand six hundred eighty) only, and to our considered opinion, this amount would be the just and proper amount of compensation here in this case. The whole cal.culation is shown as under. SL. No. HEADS CALCULATIONS (i) Income Rs.17,790/- (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects, Pranoy Sethi’s case) Rs.17,7908/+Rs.8895/- =Rs. 26,685/- per month (iii) 1/3rd of (ii) is to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased, Rs.26,685/- Rs.8895/- = Rs.17,790/- (iv) Compensation after multiplier 17 is applied Rs.17,790/- x 12 x 16 =Rs. 34,15,680/- (v) Loss of estate + 10% (in every three years) Rs.15,000/-+1500 =Rs.16500/ (vi) Loss of Consortium +10%(in every three years) Rs.40,000/+4000 = Rs.44,000 (vii) Funeral expenses,10% (in every three years) Rs.15,000/+1500 =Rs.16500/- TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION Rs. 34,92,680/- 15. In the result, we have find, no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the quantum of compensation, which, the claimant is entitled to, is modified to the extent as indicated above. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 34,92,680/-(Rupees thirty four lacs ninety two thousand six hundred eighty) to the claimant within 30 days from today, adjusting the amount, if any, paid earlier. The learned Tribunal has directed to pay interest @ 9%, from the date of filing the claim petition, till realization of the amount. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Upahar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and also in Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation: (2014)Acci.C.R.693 (S.C.), I find no ground to interfere with the same. The appellant shall deposit the remaining amount of award before the learned Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today. 16. Send down the record to the learned Court below.