Point of Law : No compensation can be awarded under head ‘loss of love and affection’.

JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (in short “ the Act”) lays challenge to award dated 23.2.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, camp at Arki, District Solan, H.P., in MACP No. 5AK/2 of 2015 (Regd No. 12/15), whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the petition having been filed by the appellants-petitioners-claimants (in short “the claimants”) saddled the respondent-HRTC with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,73,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, in the court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, Camp at Arki, District Solan, H.P., claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 lac, on account of death of Sh. Hem Raj, son of claimants No. 1 and 2 and brother of claimants No. 3 and 4, in an accident.

3. Allegedly, on 10.10.2014, at about 9:00AM, while deceased Hem Raj was going to Shimla from Vaknaghat on his motorcycle, one Volvo bus bearing registration No. HP-63-5316 being driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle, as a consequence of which, he suffered multiple injuries. Though injured was taken to IGMC Shimla after the accident, but unfortunately he succumbed to injuries. Claimants claimed that deceased Hem Raj was earning sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month being foreman/welder. Claimants claimed that since they were dependent upon the deceased Hem Raj, they are entitled to the compensation to be paid by the HRTC.

4. Aforesaid claim came to be resisted /refuted by the HRTC on the ground that accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased Hem Raj. Though factum with regard to lodging of FIR No. 102 of 2014 dated 10.10.2014 at PS Kandaghat, was duly admitted by respondent No.1, but it specifically denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the HRTC Volvo. Though respondent No.2-driver was duly served but since he failed to put in appearance, he was proceeded ex-parte.

5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned tribunal below framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the deceased Hem Raj died on dated 10-10- 2014, at about 9:00 a.m., at place near Waknaghat, under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., on account of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle No. HP-63- 5316 by the respondent No.2, as alleged?..OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?...OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?... OPR.

4. Relief.”

6. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties allowed the claim petition and held the respondent-HRTC liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,73,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit.

7. Though aforesaid award has been accepted by respondent HRTC, but since claimants were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal below, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for enhancement of the compensation.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the award impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that primarily, challenge to the impugned award has been laid on the following grounds:

“(i) Learned Tribunal below has erred in considering the monthly