The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to compensation, loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and interest rates as per the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judgments.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award, dated 30.5.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, Himachal Pradesh, in MAC petition No.63-R/2 of 2016/2015, whereby learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition having been preferred by respondents No.1 to 6 (for short ‘claimants’), awarded a sum of Rs.24,53,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% to the claimants.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘M.V. Act’), seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of death of Sh.Mast Ram, being his dependents. On 19.07.2014, deceased Mast Ram, alongwith person namely Sh. Ved Prakash hired vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-4287 from Rampur to Gaura Mashnoo, to carry welding machine and other welding material. But, unfortunately when aforesaid vehicle reached near Rattanpur, it met with an accident, resulting into death of both Sh.Mast Ram and Sh. Ved Prakash. Driver Amar Singh also died on the spot.

3. Appellant-Insurance Company refuted the claim petition having been filed by the claimants on the ground that driver of the illfated vehicle was not having effective and driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, appellant-Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle claimed that the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the insurance company and as such, insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.

4. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.24,53,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Learned Tribunal below on account of loss of dependency granted a sum of Rs.17,28,000/-, whereas drawing strength from the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54, awarded sum of Rs.,1,00,000/- as loss of consortium to respondent No.1. i.e. wife of the deceased Mast Ram, Rs.25,000/-as funeral expenses. Apart from above, Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection to respondents No.2 to 6 each. Tribunal below further held claimants entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss to the estate.

5. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance company, vehemently argued that the impugned award is against the law and facts and as such, is liable to be setaside. He further submitted that since compensation has not been awarded as per the settled principles for assessment of compensation by the learned Tribunal below and as such, liable to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chauhan, also contended that the deceased was alleged to be in self employment and as such, learned Tribunal below erred in law by awarding 50% increase over and above the income assessed by it. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, Mr. Chauhan, contended that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses and sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of love and affection to respondents No.2 to 6 each. He further contended that in terms of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, only a sum of Rs.40,000/-could be awarded under the head of loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, contended that learned Tribunal below has also erred in law in awarding interest at the rate of 9% on the assessed compensation, whereas it ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 7% i.e. prevailing rate of interest