Point of Law : Amount of compensation can be enhanced by an appellate court, while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to award dated 30.6.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla, in MAC Petition RBT No. 54-S/2 of 2015, titled Smt. Sarla and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, whereby, learned Tribunal below, while holding respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) entitled to compensation on account of death of late Dev Dutt, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 26,44,200/- to the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the claimants, being dependents of the deceased Dev Dutt, filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before learned Tribunal below, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 Lakh on account of death of Shri Dev Dutt, in an accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-07C-1299, owned and being driven by respondent No. 5. Claimants claimed that on 3.5.2015, deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question, being driven by respondent No.5 and the same met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver i.e. respondent No.5, in which, deceased Dev Dutt was injured. Unfortunately, Dev Dutt, succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Claimants claimed that the deceased was working as an attendant on casual basis from the year 2000 onwards in the residence of one Shri Anil Nanda at his home at Summer Hill, Shimla and used to earn Rs. 10,500/- per month. It is further claimed that besides above, the deceased was also working as a cook in P.G. at Aman Home Stay and Sparsh Guest House situate at Chailly, Shimla and was earning Rs. 12,000/- from there. Claimants claimed that they were solely dependent upon the earning of the deceased and as such, on account of his death, are entitled to Rs. 50.00 Lakh as compensation.

3. Aforesaid claim made on behalf of the claimants came to be refuted by respondent No.5, who, in his reply, besides taking preliminary objections of maintainability, claimed that he is not liable to pay any compensation because, at the time of accident, vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

4. Appellant-Insurance Company, in a separate reply, claimed that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, it cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants.

5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by respective parties, framed following issues:

“1. Whether the deceased Dev Dutt died in a motor vehicle accident, took place on 3.5.2015 at 9.15 AM near PNB Chailly, Shimla-5, on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 while driving vehicle No. HP-07C-1299, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

6. Whether the vehicle was being driven in salient provision of M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR

7 Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy? OPR

8. Whether the driver was not holding any valid and effective driving licence., as alleged?

9. Relief.”

6. Subsequently vide impugned Award dated 30.6.2017, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and awarded sum of Rs. 26,44,200/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till