IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that accurate income assessment and consideration of future prospects are crucial in determining compensation under the M.V. Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation while challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Cases No.240/2012 (CIS No.370/2014) and 176/2012 (CIS No.273/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.12,18,000/- and Rs.14,60,000/- respectively in favour of respective claimants. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @7.5% per annum on the compensation from the date of filing the claim petition. Both these appeals arising out of same accident are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the respondents on account of death of their bread winners, who lost their life in the accident, which took place on 19.09.2012. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia alleged by the claimants that on 19.09.2012 deceased, namely, Ramlal and Narayan Lal along with their friends went to have darshan of Ashapura temple in Car number RJ-24-CA-3230 and while they were returning from the temple, at about 04:00 pm, a truck bearing number HR-38L-7575, which was plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the car and on account of injuries suffered by the occupants of the car, Ramlal and Narayanlal died on the spot. FIR No.320/2012 of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against Shaukin, driver of the offending truck for the offences under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. At the time of accident, non-claimant No.1 was plying the vehicle under the employment and instructions of non-claimant No.2 and the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company. It was further alleged in the claim petitions that deceased Ramlal and Narayan were 22 and 26 years of age. In the claim petition No.176/2012 preferred by claimants Geeta and others alleged that deceased Ramlal was earning Rs.12000/- per month and they claimed compensation of Rs.1,15,15,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. In claim petition No.240/2012, preferred by claimants Durga Devi and others alleged that as per ITR for AY 2010-11, the yearly income of deceased Narayan was Rs.1,43,710/- as he was running a shop in the name and style of M/s Sundesha Fashion and they claimed compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a.

3. After the claim petitions being registered, summons were issued to the non-claimants and despite service, nobody put in appearance on behalf of non-claimant No.1 and, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered against him on 30.03.2013.

4. On behalf of owner/non-claimant No.2, reply to claim petitions was filed while denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was alleged that the accident had not been caused by their vehicle. It was further submitted in the reply that at the time of accident, the vehicle was fully insured with non-claimant No.3 and, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, was of the non-claimant No.3.

5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, it was submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle and the vehicle was being plied without there being valid permit and fitness issued by the competent authority. It was thus alleged in the reply that on account of violation of policy conditions, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was further alleged that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending truck and the claimants have concealed material facts with a view to usurp the compensation.

6. On the basis of pleading