IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principles for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the validity of the driver's license, calculation of compensation for future prospects, and the increase in conventional heads' amount.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

CMP No. 16829 of 2023

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record.

FAO No.279 of 2023

Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after to be referred as ‘Act’), lays challenge to impugned award dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim Petition No.143 of 2021, CNR No. HPMA-170036082021, titled as Pooja Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimants No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter to be referred as “claimants”) saddled appellant/Insurance Company with a liability to pay sum of Rs. 21,03,000-00 along with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Mr. Bittu Ram i.e. husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimants No. 3 & 4.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that claimants instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Act in the competent Court of law, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of death of person namely Bittu Ram in accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-C-1382 (Tempo-407). On 01.10.2021 deceased named herein above, who at that time was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of cleaner-cum-delivery man, fell from the vehicle on account of opening of the door and expired. Since claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased, they filed claim petition stating that deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and major portion of his earnings were being spent upon claimants, but on account of her death, they have been deprived of income, love, affection and consortium. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be refuted by the appellant/Insurance Company as well as claimants No. 5 & 6, who though admitted factum with regard to accident, but specifically denied rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of respondent No. 6, who had at the relevant time was driving the offending vehicle. Appellant/ Insurance company specifically set up a plea that since vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as Driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving License and therefore, it is not is liable to indemnify the insured. However, respondent No. 5 i.e. owner of the vehicle admitted the factum with regard to employment of deceased in the capacity of cleaner - cum-delivery man. She also admitted that deceased was getting salary of Rs. 9500/-per month.

3. On the basis of afore pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below framed following issues:-

1. Whether deceased Bittum Ram died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-1382 driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner on the date, time and place? OPP.

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

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-2& 3

4. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file the present petition by their acts and conduct as alleged? OPD-2 &3

5. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-1382 was driveen in vilations of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR-1

6. Whether the respondent No. 3 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accidents as alleged? OPR-1

7. Whether the petition is collusive between petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3, as alleged? OPR-1

8. Relief?

4. Subsequently, vide impugned award dated 04.08.2023, learned Tribunal though held that appellant/Insurance Company and respondents No. 5 and 6 jointly and severally liable for compensation, but being insu