Point of Law: Age of deceased should be basis for applying multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) against award, dated 3rd April, 2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., Camp at Nalagarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned MACT’).

2. By way of the award, dated 3rd April, 2017, the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (claimants), against respondents No. 3 (owner) and 4 (driver), and the appellant (insurer), has been allowed, by awarding compensation, to the tune of Rs. 14,49,000/-, alongwith 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the amount.

3. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, alongwith up-to-date interest, has been fastened upon the appellant, being insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.

5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

5.1. The claimants, being the parents of deceased Nazeer, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation, on account of the death of their son, Nazeer, in a road side accident.

5.2. According to the factual position, as pleaded in the claim petition, on 28th June, 2010, the son of the claimants was driving a Canter, bearing registration No. HP-12A-9277. While driving the said vehicle, when Nazeer reached at a place, known as Thathian Mahanta, Police Station Sarhali, District Taran Taaran, respondent No. 2-Lakha Singh came there, while driving bus, bearing registration No. PB-02 AZ-6595, owned by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner. The said bus hit the vehicle (canter), being driven by Nazeer. In the said accident, Nazeer sustained the fatal injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was, thereafter, taken to the Hospital at Taran Taaran, where, he succumbed to the injuries.

5.3. The matter, regarding the accident in question, was reported to the police of Police Station Sarhali, where, FIR No. 62 of 2010, dated 28th June, 2010, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was registered against respondent No. 2. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted at Civil Hospital Taran Taaran.

5.4. According to the claimants, they had spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the last rites of the deceased. In the claim petition, the claimants have also pleaded about their bright past and bleak future.

5.5. According to them, their son, at the time of his death, was about 26 years of age and was driver by profession, and, as such, they have claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakh, alongwith interest, at the rate of 12% per annum.

6. When put on notice, the claim petition was contested only by respondents No. 1 (owner) and 3 (Insurance Company), whereas, respondent No. 2 (driver) has not opted to contest the petition. As such, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Later on, due to the death of respondent No. 2 (driver), his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties, vide order, dated 11th March, 2015, passed by the learned MACT.

7. Respondent No. 1 has contested the claim petition, by filing reply, in which, the preliminary objections, with regard to maintainability, cause of action and the petition being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, have been taken.

7.1. On merit, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, the factum of accident has impliedly been admitted.

8. The Insurance Company of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No. 3, has filed its separate reply, in which, preliminary objections, regarding main