The main legal point established in the judgment is the proof of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, leading to the grant of recovery rights to the insurer against the driver and owner of the vehicle.

1. Mukesh Yadav, aged 31 years, suffered injuries that proved fatal, due to a motor vehicular accident, on account of negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. HR-63-8841, admittedly insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Limited (the insurer).

2. The accident claim case (Case No. 887/08), came to be registered on 28.07.2008, inter alia, on the basis of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the local police, on the basis of evidence gathered during the investigation of the corresponding criminal case that had been registered.

3. The Tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 10.10.2012, held that the truck had been driven in a negligent manner by Harwinder Singh (driver), a respondent in these appeals. Since the truck was registered in the name of Sandeep Kumar (owner), another respondent in these appeals, both the said driver and owner were held, jointly and severally, liable to pay.

4. The insurer, also a party respondent before the Tribunal, had taken the plea that there was no valid or effective driving licence or permit in respect of the truck and, thus, a case of breach of terms and conditions of the policy had been made out, in which view, it should be exonerated from the liability to pay. It led evidence of Anita Poddar (R3W1), an official of the insurer.

5. The Tribunal, however, rejected the aforesaid evidence and declined to grant any benefit to the insurance company calling it upon to pay the compensation, which had been determined in the sum of Rs.7,66,653/-, to which interest levied at 7.5% per annum had been added, the said amount inclusive of Rs.6,36,653/- as loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards funeral charges, loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

6. The insurer came up with appeal (MAC. Appeal No. 1201/2012) on the contention that the calculation of loss of dependency is incorrect as the fourth claimant Mohini @ Hemlata (the widow) had been shown, by evidence, to have abandoned the society of the deceased husband two weeks after the marriage. The insurer also questions the award under the non-pecuniary heads of damages.

7. Per contra, the claimants filed cross-objection (CM No.13499/2015) which was treated as an independent appeal and registered accordingly (MAC. Appeal No. 263/2016), as per order dated 16.03.2016. By the said cross appeal, the contention raised was that the award is deficient, the income should have been assumed at Rs.8,000/- per annum and that non-pecuniary heads of damages and rate of interest levied are low.

8. Both the appeals were put in the list of “Regulars” as per order dated 16.03.2016. When they are called out, in their own turn, there is no appearance on behalf of the claimants. Learned counsel for the insurer has been heard and the record perused with his assistance.

9. It does appear that during the course of inquiry, Lalita (PW-1), mother of the deceased, one of the claimants, had testified to the effect that the fourth claimant (widow of the deceased), after marriage with him on 11.02.2008, had left his society within 14 days. Unfortunately, her husband died on 18.04.2008, less than two months after what appears to be a marital discord leading to the separation of the wife and husband. But, there is nothing to show that such separation of wife from the husband was final or with no hope or scope for any re-conciliation. There is nothing to show that the parties had decided to part ways thereafter so as to never re-unite. In these circumstances, it will not be fair to assume that the wife had ceased to be a dependent on the deceased husband. Thus, the argument of error in the rate of deduction on account of personal and living expenses is rejected.

10. The record would show that the claimants had not been able to muster any clear evidence about the earnings of the deceased. In this view, the application of minimum wages by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. There is no c