The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the determination of income, conventional heads of compensation, and the impact of relevant legal precedents.

Sandeep Sharma, J:

Respondent No.1, who happened to be mother of the deceased Ankesh alias Sanam (herein after, ‘deceased’) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, camp at Rohru, Himachal Pradesh, claiming therein compensation on account of death of her son Ankesh alias Sanam, who at the relevant time was working at Goa in a three Star hotel.

2. Allegedly on 3.5.2016, deceased was coming back from Dehradun to Chirgaon in an Alto car bearing registration No. HP- 10A-8151. At about 2 pm, on 3.5.2016, aforesaid ill fated car went down the road near Gumma and Ankesh alias Sanam died on the spot. FIR No. 22/16 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code came to be lodged at Police Station Nerwa. Claimant-mother of deceased averred in the claim petition that her son after having completed diploma in hotel management was serving in Goa in a three star hotel and was getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. She further claimed that her son had also qualified test of constable in Himachal Pradesh Police. Accident allegedly took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Rockey Negi, who also expired in the said accident.

3. Aforesaid petition was resisted by respondent No. 2, who happened to be owner of the ill fated car. Though, he did not deny the factum with respect to accident and death of Ankesh in the same but denied that deceased was a diploma holder in hotel management. He also denied the factum with regard to employment of deceased in a three star hotel in Goa and his having income of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver namely Rockey Negi and claimed that car developed some mechanical defect, as a result of which, it met with an accident.

4. Appellant-Insurance Company (hereinafter ‘appellant’) refuted the claim of the claimants on the ground that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and claimed that deceased driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence as such, appellant is not liable to indemnify the insurer. Appellant also alleged that the deceased Ankesh alias Sanam was traveling in the car as a gratuitous passenger as such, claimant has no cause of action to file the claim petition and same deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by respective parties allowed the claim petition and held the claimant entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.11,07,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment. In the aforesaid background, appellant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings laying therein challenge to the impugned award dated 16.8.2017 passed in MAC Petition No. 10-R/2 of 2016.

6. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant, while terming impugned award to be illegal, vehemently argued that the same is against law and facts as such, is liable to be set aside. Mr. Thakur further contended that the learned Tribunal below has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and as such, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the appellant. Mr. Thakur, while inviting attention of this Court to the notification issued by the State Government, prescribing therein minimum wages in the State of Himachal Pradesh, with effect from 1.5.2015 contended that minimum wages prevalent in the year 2016 were Rs.180/- per day, meaning thereby monthly income of the deceased could not have been more than Rs.5400/- whereas in the case at hand, learned Tribunal below assessed income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, as such, impugned award deserves to be set aside. Mr. Thakur, further contended that the dece