The court considered the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses to determine the compensation. The court also held the insurer liable to indemnify the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal and the cross objections are directed against the Award dated 10.12.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short MACT), Bilaspur, H.P., vide which, compensation of Rs. 16,44,820/- was awarded in favour of respondents no.1 to 4 (claimants before the learned MACT).(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned MACT for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned MACT for seeking compensation for the death of Jai Kishan caused in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle bearing registration no.HP24-A-7829 being driven by respondent no.1. It was asserted that Jai Kishan was going to his home on 05.05.2012. A jeep bearing registration no. HP24-A-7829 came from Galua at a high speed. Jai Kishan signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. However, the driver could not control the vehicle and hit the deceased. He fell and sustained multiple injuries. Jai Kishan was working as a Helper in the IPH department and he was getting a salary of Rs. 16,845/-. He was an agriculturist and earned Rs.4,000/- per month from agriculture. The claimants were dependent upon the earnings of Jai Kishan and have been left with no source of income after his death. The accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. The matter was also reported to the police and an F.I.R. No. 40/12 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC in Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent No. 2 had insured the vehicle. Hence, the present petition was filed for seeking compensation from the respondents jointly and severally.

3. The petition was opposed by respondent no.1, by filing a reply, taking preliminary objection regarding the petition being false. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the F.I.R. was registered against Harbans Singh and not against respondent no.1. The police also verified on the spot that Jai Kishan had died due to the rash and negligent driving of Harbans Singh. This fact was mentioned in the inquest papers prepared by the police. A news item was published in the newspaper stating that Jai Kishan had died due to the negligence of Harbans. Subsequently, this version was changed and it was mentioned that the accident had occurred with the Jeep of respondent no.1. A false case was made against respondent no.1. The deceased never travelled in the vehicle of respondent no. 1.Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed against respondent no.1.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a separate reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, absence of policy, and the vehicle being driven without valid registration and driving license in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that a highly exaggerated and exorbitant compensation has been sought. The claim petition was filed on false facts. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

5. No rejoinder was filed.

6. The learned MACT framed the following issues on 20.02.2015:

1. Whether on 5.05.2012 at about 6:30 p.m. near Galua Jai Kishan died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, owner-cum-driver of jeep bearing No. HP24A-7829? OPP

2. If issue No.1 above is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-2

4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence?OPR-2

5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid documents?OPR-2.

6. Relief.

7. The parties were called upon to lead their evidence. The claimants examined Krishan Chand (PW-1), Virender Singh (PW-2), Claimant N