Judgment : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. 1. The appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle have filed this appeal challenging the liability part against the award passed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Bemetara in Claim Case No. 59/2024 dated 16.01.2025, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 16,31,456/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Bhagirathi Koshle. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.02.2024 deceased Bhagirathi Koshle was going towards Village Pathrra from Bemetara on his motorcycle Honda Shine bearing registration No. CG-25/K-9145 and when he reached Sri Shankara Hospital, driver of offending vehicle Swaraj Majda bearing registration No. CG-04/JD-5635 by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, resultantly Bhagirathi Koshle sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The claimants who are parents and siblings filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that on the date of accident, age of the deceased was 20 years and earning Rs.500/- per day as he was a Mason. They claimed a sum of Rs.01 crore. 4. The driver and owner filed their reply and denied the averments made in claim petition. They pleaded that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver had valid and effective driving license. 5. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and fitness. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 7. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/driver and owner would submit that initially permit was issued for period from 15.11.2018 to 14.11.2023. An application for renewal of permit was moved on 26.02.2024 and it was renewed for period from 26.02.2024 to 25.02.2029. Mr. Tiwari would submit that on the date of accident i.e. 25.02.2024, there was no permit, but the appellants herein would get benefit of provisions under Section 81 (3) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An application for renewal of permit was moved on 26.02.2024 and it was renewed for period from 26.02.2024 to 25.02.2029. Mr. Tiwari would submit that on the date of accident i.e. 25.02.2024, there was no permit, but the appellants herein would get benefit of provisions under Section 81 (3) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle only on the ground that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit with the offending vehicle. He would pray to modify the award accordingly. 8. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6/Insurance Company would submit that the permit issued in favour of the offending vehicle by the Regional Transport Authority got expired on 14.11.2023 and on the date of accident, there was no valid permit. He would submit that application for renewal of the permit was moved on 26.02.2024 and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit and fastened liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that it is not a case where application for renewal of permit was moved before expiry of validity of permit or immediately after expiry of validity of permit, rather application was moved on 26.02.2024 after the date of accident. He would contend that the appellants herein would not get benefit of Section 81 (3) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would submit that the appeal filed by the appellants/driver and owner deserves to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Arivind Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants would submit that cross-objection has been filed for enhancement of compensation. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered income of the deceased properly. He would contend that on conventional head, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount and further failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 10. Mr. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered income of the deceased properly. He would contend that on conventional head, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount and further failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 10. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No. 6/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the claimants failed to prove the fact that the deceased was a Mason and earning Rs.500/- per day, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal applied the minimum wages matrix and assessed the income of the deceased. He would submit that the cross-objection deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 12. With regard to validity of permit, the witness, examined by the Insurance Company, NAW-1 - Ankur Meshram has categorically stated that the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority was valid for period from 15.11.2018 to 14.11.2023. This witness further stated that an application for renewal of permit was moved on 26.02.2024 and fee of Rs.2,000 was deposited by the owner of the offending vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority. It is also stated that the permit was renewed with effect from 26.02.2024 till 25.02.2029. It is also stated that on the date of accident i.e. 25.02.2024, there was no valid permit. Particular of the permit has been placed on record by the Insurance Company as Ex. D/4. 13. Perusal of the permit and the evidence led by Ankur Meshram NAW-1 would make it clear that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit. The earlier permit got expired on 14.11.2023 and subsequent permit was effective from 26.02.2024 to 25.02.2029. 14. At this stage, it would be advantageous to go through the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with duration and renewal of permits and same is reproduced herein below:- “ 81. Duration and renewal of permits. The earlier permit got expired on 14.11.2023 and subsequent permit was effective from 26.02.2024 to 25.02.2029. 14. At this stage, it would be advantageous to go through the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with duration and renewal of permits and same is reproduced herein below:- “ 81. Duration and renewal of permits. -(1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of Section 88 shall be effective 1 [from the date of issuance or renewal thereof] for a period of five years: Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of Section 88, such counter- signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. (2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. (4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- (a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; (b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:- (i) plying any vehicle- (1)without payment of tax due on such vehicle; (2)without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; (3)on any unauthorised route; (ii) making unauthorised trips: Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account: Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. (5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.” 15. A bare reading of above quoted provisions would make it clear that a permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. A bare reading of above quoted provisions would make it clear that a permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. It is further says that the Regional Transport Authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. This provision further says that where a permit has been renewed after the expiry of the period, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit was granted. 16. Thus, it can safely be held that expiry of the validity of permit would not affect, if subsequently permit is renewed by the competent authority. The High Court of Karnataka in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yasmin Begum @ Yasmin W/o Late Mohammed Jilan @ Mohammad Jilani & Others reported in 2019 LawSuit (Kar) 3151 while dealing with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where similar issue was involved in paragraphs no. 20, 23, 24 & 25 held as under:- “ [20] Next contention is with regard to breach of the insurance company on the aspect of the offending vehicle not possessing a valid permit on the date of the accident. It is noted that in this case, the vehicle had a valid permit till 14/12/2012 and the date of the accident is 23/2/2013. Subsequently, the permit was issued on 11/3/2013 up to 10/3/2018 as per Ex.R.5, which is dated 8/10/2015. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contended that it has been established by the insurance company before the Tribunal that the vehicle did not possess a permit on the date of the accident and therefore, there being a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as Section 66 of the Act and hence, the insurance company ought to be exonerated. [23] On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear when the permit is issued, in the first instance, it is effective from the date of issuance for a period of five years. But subsequently when a permit which has expired is renewed, it is from the date of expiry. [23] On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear when the permit is issued, in the first instance, it is effective from the date of issuance for a period of five years. But subsequently when a permit which has expired is renewed, it is from the date of expiry. Having regard to Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 81 of the Act, where there could be a delay in making of an application for renewal of permit and also keeping in mind the fact that renewal application would take sometime for it to be considered, processed and ultimately the permit being renewed even though such an application has been made well within time. Sub- section (5) of Section 81 of the Act takes care of a period during which the vehicle is plying on the public road, pending renewal of the permit. In such a case, Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act states that where a permit is renewed after the expiry of its period, such renewal shall have an effect from the date of such expiry. In other words, Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act deals with a case of deemed permit or takes care of a situation where pending renewal of the a permit, a transport vehicle is plying on a public road. In such a situation, it cannot be considered to be a case where the transport vehicle is plying without a permit rather the vehicle is plying pending renewal of the permit i.e. on a deemed permit. Renewal of the permit could take place only if a permit had been issued in the first instance and not otherwise. Hence, the object of a provision incorporating a legal fiction must be given its fullest scope and application. [24] Amrit PAUL SINGH is a case where the offending vehicle therein did not have a permit at all. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing in mind the interest of the claimants and the object and purpose of the Act held that the insurance company must pay to the claimants in the first instance and recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. But, in the instant case, as already noted, the offending vehicle did possess a permit. The permit and expired on 14/12/2012. But, in the instant case, as already noted, the offending vehicle did possess a permit. The permit and expired on 14/12/2012. It was subsequently renewed on 11/3/2013 up to 10/3/2018 and for the period from 14/12/2012 up to 10/3/2013, there was deemed permit in so far as the offending vehicle herein is concerned. The offending vehicle, in the instant case, cannot be considered to be a vehicle plying without a permit. Therefore, the direction in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH and RANI AND OTHERS cannot be straight away applied in the instant case. As already stated, this is not a case where the offending vehicle did not have a permit at all. It is a case of non-renewal of permit as on the date of the accident, but the vehicle being covered under a deemed permit under Sub-section (5) of Section 81 of the Act. [25] In this regard, reliance could be placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.LAKSHMAN REDDI vs. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 1977 AIR (AP) 299. In the said case, the Court was considering Section 58(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is a provision similar to Section 81 of the Act. In the said case, it was observed that once the renewal of a permit is granted, it has retrospective effect and if the vehicle is run on a temporary permit, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit is liable to be refunded. So once renewal has been granted, it has retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the permit and the vehicle must be deemed to be having a valid permit from the date of expiry of permit. This is irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted. If so, it follows that the vehicle must be deemed to have been run on a valid permit after the expiry of the permit though the renewal was granted subsequently. It is open for an operator either to apply for a temporary permit pending disposal of the application for renewal of the permit or he may also run the vehicle in anticipation of the renewal of the permit. Of course, in a case where the permit has not been renewed, the operator will take the risk of having to pay the maximum tax and also penalty. Of course, in a case where the permit has not been renewed, the operator will take the risk of having to pay the maximum tax and also penalty. But, if the permit has been renewed, it will take effect from the date of the expiry of the original permit and it cannot be said that the vehicle was run without a valid permit.” 17. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the provisions of Section 81 (3) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the law enunciated by the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yasmin Begum @ Yasmin W/o Late Mohammed Jilan @ Mohammad Jilani & Others , in my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and findings recorded in this regard are here by set aside . It is held that the Insurance Company/respondent No. 6 shall be liable to indemnify the compensation. 18. With regard to enhancement of compensation, the claimants failed to adduce evidence with regard to income of the deceased. There is no evidence to infer that the deceased was working as Mason. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly treated the deceased unskilled labourer and assessed income according to minimum wages matrix. The learned Claims Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased 20 years; deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased and granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and such findings do not require interference by this Court. The learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- for love and affection to the mother and Rs.22,000/-to other members of family. The learned Claims Tribunal should have granted compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) to the parents for loss of consortium. 19. Taking into consideration, this Court is re-computing the compensation as below:- 20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,31,456/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,11,456/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,31,456/- the respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- . The concerned respondent No. 6/Insurance Company shall satisfy the compensation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,31,456/- the respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- . The concerned respondent No. 6/Insurance Company shall satisfy the compensation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. Consequently, the appeal preferred by appellants/Driver and Owner is hereby allowed and liability is fastened with the Insurance Company. Cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants is hereby partly allowed 22. The appellants/driver and owner shall be at liberty to withdraw the security amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited with the learned Claims Tribunal.