HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Mac App No. 164/2019 CM No. 9029/2019, 9031/2019 c/w Mac App No. 165/2019 CM No. 9037/2019, 9038/2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Th. Duni Singh Motten …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Divyanshu Malhotra, Advocate vice Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate. vs Murtoo Devi and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Pathania, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 21.02.2025 ORAL 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the common award dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the learned Tribunal has decided two claim petitions preferred by the claimants on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma S/o Om Parkash and Om Parkash S/o Thakur Dass, who happen to be the son of respondent No. 1, father of respondent No. 2 and 4 and husband of respondent No. 3. 3. Om Parkash and Nikhil Sharma met with an accident on 22.11.2013 at Vikram Chowk, Jammu allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02X-3705 by the respondent Serial No. 2 2 Mac App No. 164/2019 c/w Mac App No. 165/2019 No.6. The claimants filed two separate claim petitions for grant of compensation on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma and his father, namely, Om Parkash in the vehicular accident as mentioned above. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were put to notice. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 did not cause appearance before the learned Tribunal, as a result of which, they were set ex parte. However, the appellant herein appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed objections to the claim petition. Both the claim petitions were clubbed and decided by virtue of common award dated 22.05.2019. 4. In the claim petition filed on account of demise of Om Parkash, the claimants were held entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs. 10,37,500/- whereas in the claim petition filed on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma, the claimants were held entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is actually disbursed to the claimants. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed these two separate appeals thereby impugning the common award on the common ground that the license issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 was not carrying the Passenger Service Vehicle (PSV) endorsement and as such, the appellant- Insurance Company could not have been made liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the compensation awarded to the claimants. Besides this common ground, it is urged by the appellant-Insurance Company that insofar as the appeal against the award in respect of grant of compensation on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma is concerned, the learned Tribunal 3 Mac App No. 164/2019 c/w Mac App No. 165/2019 has adopted the multiplier of 20, which is not permissible under law, more particularly in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 6. Mr. Divyanshu Malhotra, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has fallen in grave error of law while applying the multiplier of 20 and at the most, the multiplier of 18 could have been applied in terms of Sarla Verma’s Judgement (Supra). He has further argued that the vehicle was not having the PSV endorsement, and the appellant could not have been made liable to indemnify the owner in respect of award passed in favour of the claimants. 7. Per contra, Mr. Arjun Singh Pathania, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that merely because there was no PSV endorsement on the driving license of the driver, the insurance company cannot be exonerated of its liability to satisfy the award. He has further tried to persuade this Court with regard to the multiplier of 20 applied by the learned Tribunal while granting the compensation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Only two grounds have been urged before this Court, the first is with regard to absence of PSV endorsement on the license, issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 and the second is with regard to multiplier of 20 adopted by the learned Tribunal for granting compensation on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma. 4 Mac App No. 164/2019 c/w Mac App No. 165/2019 10. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the absence of PSV endorsement on the license of the driver is concerned, mere absence of PSV endorsement on the license of the driver would not exonerate the insurance company of its liability to satisfy the award. (See Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668). Accordingly, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is rejected. 11. So far as the other contention raised by the appellant with regard to the multiplier of 20 adopted by the learned tribunal while granting compensation on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma is concerned, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. In terms of Sarla Verma’s Case (Supra), the multiplier which can be applied in this case is 18. Accordingly, this Court modifies the compensation for loss of dependency granted in favour of the claimants on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma by adopting the multiplier of 18, to Rs. 3,24,000/-, against Rs. 3,60,000/- determined by the learned Tribunal. So far as the compensation awarded to the claimants on account of demise of Om Parkash is concerned, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence. 12. Accordingly, Mac App No. 165/2019 is dismissed, and the Mac App No. 164/2019 is partially allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants on account of demise of Nikhil Sharma is modified to Rs. 4,84,000/-, however, the interest component shall remain same. 13. The awarded amount, as modified above, be released in favour of the claimants along with interest after their due verification by their counsel 5 Mac App No. 164/2019 c/w Mac App No. 165/2019 and the balance amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant- Insurance Company. 14. Record of the Tribunal, if summoned in original, be sent back forthwith. 15. Both the appeals are disposed of along with the connected applications. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 21.02.2025 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sahil Padha 2025.02.27 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document