The court emphasized that the insurance claim was not a result of collusion and upheld the quantum of compensation based on the evidence presented by the claimants.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') preferred by the Insurer seeks to assail the award dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in MAC No.499/2011. Vide the impugned award the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of INR 9,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e., the son and daughter of the deceased.

2. The brief facts emerging from the record are that on 14.11.2003, Mrs.Kanchan Gupta was travelling in the car bearing Registration No. DL 2CV 3454, which was duly insured with the appellant. Her son Mr.Gaurav Gupta, who is respondent no.4 in this appeal, was driving the car. The said car met with an accident and collided against a tree as a result of which, Mrs.Kanchan Gupta sustained fatal injuries, and succumbed thereto. When the respondents raised a claim for insurance, it was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the Insured could not be a beneficiary against himself. Aggrieved by the rejection, the respondent nos.1 to 3 preferred a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal.

3. In support of its claim, the respondents sought to examine five witnesses. However, since one of the witnesses failed to turn up for examination, the learned Tribunal relied only on the evidence of four witnesses on behalf of the respondent Claimants. On the other hand, the appellant/insurer did not lead any evidence on its behalf, but it cross-examined the witnesses of the respondents.

4. After considering the evidence led by the respondents, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of Mrs.Kanchan Gupta was brought about by the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle, i.e., respondent no.4, her son. Consequently, the learned Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay compensation. While calculating the compensation amount, the learned Tribunal accepted the respondents' plea that the monthly income of the deceased was INR 7000/-. To buttress the conclusion that Mrs.Kanchan Gupta ran a boutique tailoring business named `Kanchan Boutique' and earned an approximate monthly income of INR 7000/-, the learned Tribunal relied on the testimonies of respondent no.1, i.e., PW4/husband of the deceased as also PW3/Ms.Leela, a regular client at the boutique.

5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal, the appellant Insurer has preferred the present appeal.

6. Mr.Rudra Kahlon, learned counsel for the Insurer has made two primary submissions in support of the appeal. His first and foremost contention is that since the offending vehicle was being driven by the son of the deceased, for whose death the insurance claim has been raised, this is not a bona fide claim and is a clear case of collusion. He submits that proof of the lack of bona fides of these claimants is reflected by the fact that they did not register any First Information Report in respect of the accident. He, therefore, contends that no compensation ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal in these circumstances.

7. Without prejudice to his submission that the respondents' claim was liable to be outrightly rejected, Mr.Kahlon, next contends that the learned Tribunal also erred in accepting the purported monthly income of the deceased as being INR 7000/-. He submits that the figure is arbitrary and, barring the oral claims made by the respondents' witnesses, no reliable evidence was placed on record to substantiate this figure or the fact that the deceased was earning anything at all. In the absence of such evidence, if at all the learned Tribunal wished to grant compensation to the respondents, the amount of compensation ought to have been calculated as per the existing minimum wages prescribed for unskilled workers. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal b