JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘Act’), prayer has been made on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter ‘claimant’) to enhance the amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim petition No.31 of 2011, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, awarded sum of Rs.1,11000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount in favour of the claimant.

2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the claimant Smt. Sumitra Devi, who happened to be mother of deceased Sandeep Kumar, preferred petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of her son namely, Sandeep Kumar. On 20.7.2011, deceased Sandeep Kumar, aged 28 years while coming from Bhuntar to Kullu side riding his own motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34-B-0518 came to be hit by bus bearing registration No. HP-34-B-2151 being driven by respondent No.2, Hari Singh in rash and negligent manner, as a consequence of which, above named Sandeep Kumar sustained multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Unfortunately, after one day of the accident, above named Sandeep Kumar succumbed to his injuries at PGI Chandigarh. FIR No.177 of 2011, dated 20.7.2011 under Sections 279,337 and 304-A of IPC came to be registered against respondent No.2 at police Station, Bhuntar. Claimant named hereinabove claimed before the Tribunal below that her deceased son was serving as Territory Sales Manager (TSM) with Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Private Limited and his monthly salary was Rs.10, 999/- Claimant submitted before the Tribunal below that death of her deceased son has resulted in great financial loss to her and she is also deprived of love and affection of her son and as such, she be adequately compensated. Claimant claimed that her other son is living separately with his family and there is none to look after her. Claimant also claimed before the Tribunal below that she has spent sum of Rs.50, 000/- on performing last rites and rituals of the deceased.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 while fairly admitting the factum with regard to accident resisted the claim on the ground that accident took place on account of negligence of deceased Sandeep Kumar. Respondent No.3, i.e. Insurance Company claimed that it is not liable to pay any sort of compensation because at the time of the alleged accident, driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.3 also claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it cannot be burdened with liability to indemnify the insured.

4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below vide order dated 8.9.2008 framed following issues:-

1. Whether deceased Sandeep Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.3 being indemnifier is liable to make payment of compensation? OPP.

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR-3

5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3

6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

7. Relief:-

5. Subsequently, learned Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 29.4.2013 held claimant entitled to compe