IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for loss of dependency must include future prospects, the appropriate multiplier must reflect the deceased's age, and conventional heads should follow established judicial guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment/award dated 05.08.2019 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 98 of 2017, whereby learned M.A.C.T., Bhagalpur has directed the insurance company, who is the Respondent No.3 herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 6,33,000/- to the claimants, who are Appellants herein, as compensation on account of death of one Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar in a motor accident along with interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The payment of Rs. 50,000/- already made towards interim compensation has been directed to be adjusted against the total compensation amount and the compensation was directed to be paid within sixty days from the date of the order.

2. As per the statement of learned counsel for the Appellants, the total compensation amount as directed by learned Tribunal has been already received by the Appellants from the insurance company. However, being dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation, the Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for getting enhanced compensation.

3. In the course of pendency of this appeal, the Appellant No.2, Pappu Thakur has died. Hence, he has been substituted by his legal heir, Champa Devi, who is his married daughter. The other legal heir Shila Devi (wife of Pappu Thakur) was already Appellant No.1 herein.

4. The factual background of this case is that on 29.03.2017, an accident took place involving a tanker bearing registration no. BR-51-6620 resulting into death of one Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar, son of the claimants Shila Devi and Pappu Thakur. Subsequently, Rajoun P.S. Case No. 104 of 2017 was registered on 29.03.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 279 , 337, 338, 304A IPC against the driver and the owner of the aforesaid tanker. As per further averment in the claim petition, the deceased Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar was traveling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration no. BR-10-PA-8514 which was dashed by the said tanker on account of rash and negligent driving. The deceased is alleged to be 19 years of age at the time of death and he was unmarried and working as a private tutor earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was further claimed that the offending tanker was insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the relevant time of accident vide the policy no.171000/31/16/6300002116 effective from 10.07.2016 to 09.07.2017 covering the date of accident on 29.03.2017.

5. The Appellants, Shila Devi and Pappu Thakur filed the claim case no. 98 of 2017 on 11.05.2017 for compensation of Rs. 16,16,000/- impleading the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company.

6. On notice, all the three Opposite Parties appeared, but the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, who were owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, did not file any written statement. However, the insurance company, who was the Opposite Party No.3 before the Tribunal, filed its written statement. However, no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the insurance company seeking permission to contest the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the Claimants and the Insurance Company, the following six issues were framed:

“(i) Whether the claim case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the claimants have valid cause of action for the present claim case?

(iii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle?

(iv)Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for?

(v). Whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of alleged incident?

(vi) Whether the driver has valid license at the time of accident?”

8. During trial, the Claimants have examined the following two witnesses : C.W.-1- Pappu Thakur (Claimant No.2) and C.W.-2- Bhajj