JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the respondents, yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2014 passed by the District Judge 1st-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. No.13 of 2010 by which the learned Tribunal in an application filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act has directed the opposite party nos.3 and 4 to pay Rs.6,09,700/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount, from the date of filing of suit to the claimants, in respect of the death of the deceased Sonia Devi caused by a motor vehicle accident and Rs.2,90,000/- to the claimant no.1 for permanent disability sustained by him along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 14.08.2009 at about 10:15 A.M. while the claimant no.1-respondent no.1 along with his wife being the deceased- Sonia Devi were going on a motorcycle, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven dashed the motorcycle causing injuries to the deceased- Sonia Devi and the claimant no.1- respondent no.1. While the deceased- Sonia Devi succumbed to the injuries, during the course of her treatment at Bokaro General Hospital and the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 got serious injuries and was also admitted in Bokaro General Hospital. He was discharged only on 18.12.2009. The claimant no.1 Kartik Manjhi became permanently disabled and the motorcycle was also badly damaged. 5. In the learned Tribunal, both the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle appeared and opposed the claim petition and pleaded that the driver of the truck has got valid driving licence which was valid up to 29.01.2011. The opposite party nos.3 and 4 being the appellant no.1 and 2- insurance company before this Court opposed the prayer for grant of compensation and pleaded that the permanent disability of the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 has not caused any loss of his earnings. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Have the claimants valid cause of action for the suit? 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Have the claimants valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the deceased Soniya Devi died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.JH- 02L-8420? (iv) Whether truck bearing Regd. No.JH-02L-8420 had valid insurance policy, permit on the date of accident? (v) Whether the driver of the motorcycle bearing Regd. No.JH-09F- 7828 had valid driving license and insurance policy? (vi) Whether there was contributory negligence between truck bearing Regd. No.JH-02L-8420 and motorcycle bearing Regd. No.JH09f-7828? (vii) Whether the injured Kartik Manjhi became permanently disabled in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing. No.JH-02L-8420? (viii) To which any other relief or reliefs the claimants are entitled too? (ix) Whether the petitioner are liable for compensation to what extent and from whom? 7. In support of their case, the claimant-respondents altogether examined one witness and proved the documents which have been marked Exts. 1 to 12 whereas from the side of the opposite party nos.3 and 4, two witnesses were examined and the opposite party nos.3 and 4 also proved the documents which were marked Ext. A to D. 8. The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) together and after considering the evidence both documentary and oral came to the conclusion that the deceased- Sonia Devi died in the motor vehicle accident and the claimant no.1- Kartik Manjhi also received grievous injury due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The learned Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending truck was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal went on to hold that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 and he had got valid driving licence. In respect of issue no. The learned Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending truck was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal went on to hold that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 and he had got valid driving licence. In respect of issue no. (ix), the learned Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased- Sonia Devi to be 30 years at the time of her death basing upon the age mentioned in postmortem report, medical book and death certificate issued by the Bokaro General Hospital and the age of the claimant no.1- Kartik Manjhi was found to be 45 years 7 months 9 days that is 46 years. From Ext. 4, the Tribunal accepted the gross monthly salary of the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 to be Rs.23,499.08/- and his net monthly salary to be Rs.14,200/-. Basing upon the net salary of her husband, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased- Sonia Devi to be 1/3rd of her husband as Rs.4,550/- and thus the annual income assessed at Rs.54,600/- and after deduction the personal expenses, the annul dependency comes to Rs.36,400/- and applying the multiplier 18, the total compensation arrived at was Rs.6,55,200/- besides Rs.2,000/- was added as funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- was added as loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.6,59,700/- was awarded in respect of the death of deceased- Sonia Devi but Rs.50,000/- having been paid as ad interim compensation to the claimants, the Tribunal directed payment of Rs.6,09,700/- as compensation in respect of the death of Sonia Devi and further considered that the claimant no.1- Kartik Manjhi has sustained 40% of permanent disability; because of the amputation 2nd,3rd and 4th fingers and stiffness of ankle of his right leg and considering that claimant no.1-A.W.1 in his deposition stated that he cannot make any normal movement due to his disability; awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.80,000/-. As no loss of earning capacity could be brought on record because of his disablement, no compensation was awarded under that head. Under the head of physical pain and mental agony, the Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the head of loss of amenities of life another Rs.1,00,000/- and under the head- loss towards damage of motorcycle Rs.10,000/- and thus, in total awarded Rs.2,90,000/- in respect of permanent disablity of the claimant no.1. Under the head of physical pain and mental agony, the Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the head of loss of amenities of life another Rs.1,00,000/- and under the head- loss towards damage of motorcycle Rs.10,000/- and thus, in total awarded Rs.2,90,000/- in respect of permanent disablity of the claimant no.1. The learned Tribunal answered issue nos. (i) (ii) and (viii) in the affirmative by holding that the claimants have valid cause of action to institute the case and the case is maintainable. 9. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and as two vehicles were involved that is the motorcycle of the deceased and the truck, the learned Tribunal ought to have apportioned the compensation between both the vehicles. It is next submitted by Mr. Jha that as the insurance company has taken specific plea that the charge sheeted driver of the truck namely Sahdeo Mandal had no valid driving licence; which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract by the owner/insured of the truck, hence, the liability to pay the compensation rests on the shoulder of the owner/insured but the learned Tribunal erred by directing the insurance company to pay the compensation instead of the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted by Mr. Jha that the learned Tribunal erred by not considering the fact that the appellant-insurance company upon getting the driving licence of the driver of the said offending vehicle verified by D.T.O., Hoogly found the same to be fake. It is next submitted by Mr. Jha that the learned Tribunal awarded two claims, one for the death and another for the injury in single claim application which was not proper. It is then submitted that the method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal is quite unreasonable. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under :- “13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under :- “13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh [ 1994 ACJ 374 (P&H)] that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.” (Emphasis supplied) It is next submitted by Mr. Jha that the subsequent renewal of a fake driving licence would not make the licence valid. Hence, the Tribunal would have absolved the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for determination crop up in this appeal :- (i) Whether the learned Tribunal has erred by not absolving the insurance company from payment of the compensation? (ii) Whether the Tribunal committed error in awarding the compensation amount to the claimants? 11. So far as the first point for determination is concerned, after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement jointly submitted by the opposite party nos.3 and 4 before the Tribunal, the insurance company has pleaded that as the owner of the driver of the offending vehicle have not appeared and not submitted the documents of the vehicle and the driving licence. Hence, the insurance company be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. It is further being stated that due to lack of effective and valid driving licence of the driver of the truck, the liability of the answering defendant could not arise. 12. Hence, the insurance company be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. It is further being stated that due to lack of effective and valid driving licence of the driver of the truck, the liability of the answering defendant could not arise. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that nowhere in the written statement, there is averment made by the insurance company that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. 13. The two witnesses examined by the appellant-insurance company being the D.W.1 Surendra Kumar who in his examination-in-chief besides mentioning the documents has only stated that the salary slip of July, 2009 of the claimant no.1- Kartik Manjhi shows that the net income was Rs.14,200/- and the Kartik Manjhi is still rendering service to the Bokaro Steel Plant. Similarly, O.P.W.2- Jaiyant Dev in examination in chief filed in shape of affidavit has only proved five documents and has not uttered even a single word about anything else. 14. It is a settled principle of law that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Faziran Bibi & Ors. in M.A. No.240 of 2010, paragraph no.16, 17, 18 and 21 of which reads as under :- “16. Mr. Laik, further draws attention of the Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in case of Oriental Insurance Co. in M.A. No.240 of 2010, paragraph no.16, 17, 18 and 21 of which reads as under :- “16. Mr. Laik, further draws attention of the Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manorama Devi and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 401 wherein one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench in the case of TripurariMandal (supra) was also part of the Bench, and submitted that in the case of Manorama Devi, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, when the question arose for consideration was, whether in absence of any evidence to the effect that the owner knowing fully well that driver was not having a valid driving licence or the driver holding a defective license, the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability, and where in that case the Tribunal although took notice of the fact the owner failed to prove the driving licence , it held that no evidence was led by the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge about the fact that driver had defective driving licence, and further held that in such circumstances the insurance company cannot disown its liability, relying upon the judgment of Swarna Sing (supra) held as under in paragraph 8:- “8. In the light of the aforesaid ratio decided by the Supreme Court we are of the view that in absence of any evidence to the effect that the insured was in know of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence and even then handed over the vehicle for being driven, the finding of the tribunal needs no interference by this court. 17. Mr. Laik further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. 9 M.A. 240 of 2010 Tulna Devi & Others reported in 2009 ACJ 581 wherein Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6:- “............................ 4. The insurance company had entered appearance before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the defence taken by the respondent insurance company to the claim petition is as under- “That the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the liability, if any, is therefore of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. In the written statement, the defence taken by the respondent insurance company to the claim petition is as under- “That the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the liability, if any, is therefore of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. The replying respondent, however, reserves its right to ascertain the factual position in case the particulars about the driving license are supplied by the correspondent to prove its defence.” No amendment was made in the written statement at a later stage nor did the insurance company lead any evidence except that the Licensing Authority was called to prove the driving license of the driver at the relevant time. As a matter of fact, it has been proved that the driver was not holding a licence to drive the passenger vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company had not led any evidence to prove that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver and the cause of the accident was disqualification of the driver to drive a passenger vehicle as he was holding a different type of driving licence whereas he was driving a different category vehicle. 5. In our view, the case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this court reported in 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein this court in para 102 (iii) at page 33 has held as under: “(iii) the breach of policy conditions, e.g. disqualification of driver of invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 6. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 6. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the vehicle cannot be doubted.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that assuming for the sake of argument that the driving M.A. 240 of 2010 licence of the driver of the trekker was fake still there being no pleading or evidence put forth by the insurer appellant-insurance company who was accorded permission under Section 170 (b) M.V. Act to contest the proceeding by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, to the effect that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was guilty for negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy, regarding the use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or by a driver who was not disqualified to drive the vehicle at the relevant time, learned tribunal has rightly held that the appellant–insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount by way of indemnifying the owner of the trekker concerned, which was involved in the accident. 21. 21. Having hard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the records, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the ratio of the case of Swarna Singh (supra), in order to absolve itself from the liability of the insurance policies that besides the evidence to establish that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to further plead and prove that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven and in the absence of such evidence, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant so far as first ground is concerned. Hence the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount of the award.” 15. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Faziran Bibi & Ors. (supra), relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulna Devi & Ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 581 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in order to absolve itself from the liability to pay the compensation amount if undisputedly, the insurance policy is a valid one, it is incumbent upon the Insurance Company to further plead and prove that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven and in the absence of such evidence the insurance company cannot be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case as already indicated above, there is absolutely no pleading of the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge about the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case as already indicated above, there is absolutely no pleading of the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge about the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. It is undisputed even by the insurance company that on the relevant date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence but the insurance company finds fault with the owner because as per the insurance company the earlier driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be not issued by the registering authority is concerned, of course, did not find favour with the Tribunal as the Tribunal found that the number of the driving licence which was claimed not to have been issued by the District Transport Officer was not the same as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. So far as the judgment of New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (supra) is concerned, the fact of that case was different in the sense that in that case a fake driving licence was renewed upon which it was held in the case that the renewal of the license cannot set at naught the fake driving license but in this case perusal of Ext. 12 shows that it is a fresh driving licence issued by the District Transport Authority issued to the driver of the offending vehicle on 08.02.2008 and it was valid and was due for renewal only on 29.01.2011 but in the fresh driving licence issued to the driver of the offending vehicle it has been mentioned that earlier also he was having a driving licence. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the earlier driving license issued to the driver of the offending vehicle was fake; though the insurance company has failed to establish that the earlier driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued by the competent authority or the same is fake on any other ground; the same will not have any bearing upon the fresh driving licence issued complying the requirement of issuing such licence by competent authority being the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh as it is needless to mention that a fresh driving license is issued only after complying the requirements to verify the ability of the person to whom the licenses issued is competent to drive a vehicle whereas for renewal of driving license the same is not required. Further, from Ext. 12 that is the copy of the driving licence issued to the driver of the offending vehicle, it has not been mentioned as to which authority has issued the earlier driving licence. Ext. C which was marked with objection shows that the licensing authority of Hoogly has stated that he has not issued the said licence but the question remains that there is no reference in Ext. 12 that is the copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle that the driving licence was issued by the Hoogly licensing authority and certificate issued by the Hoogly licensing authority that he has not given such licence still have no bearing on the document of the case particularly, when the witness on the basis of whose deposition, Ext. C was marked with objection has not whispered even a single word in this respect. Further as already mentioned above, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence that the owner of the vehicle was aware about the driving licence of the driver being fake. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 17. Now coming to the second point for determination, so far as the contention of the appellants regarding the motorcycle should have been saddled with some of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal basing upon the evidence in the record has concluded that the motorcycle was not having any contributory negligence in the accident and the appellants have not challenged the said finding of the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly not apportioned any quantum of compensation to be paid by the owner or insurer of the motorcycle. 18. So far as the contention of the appellants that two claims were made in one claim petition is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that the written statement of the insurance company reveals that before the Tribunal, the insurance company had no grievance in respect of same. So, this being a fact, the contention which was never pleaded or agitated before the Tribunal cannot be entertained by this Court for the first time in the appeal. 19. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding unreasonable calculation adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, this Court after considering the evidence in the record do not find any illegality or anomaly in the calculation of compensation and the same appears to be a just compensation. The second point of determination is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. 21. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount if any, deposited by the appellants in this appeal to the concerned Tribunal by appropriate mode forthwith. 22. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.