IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for positive evidence to establish the cause of death in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the calculation of compensation based on loss of dependency and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Above captioned appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘Act’), lay challenge to award dated 31.03.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV) Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in M.A.C.C. No. 29-S/2 of 2016, titled as Dalbir Singh (deceased) through LRs Smt. Seema Devi and others vs. Sunny Jindal and another, whereby tribunal below, while holding claimants i.e. appellants in FAO No.227 of 2021, entitled for compensation, saddled National Insurance Company i.e. appellant in FAO No.254 of 2021, with liability to pay sum of Rs. 4, 65, 179/ - alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that deceased Dalbir Singh, instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of the injury suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.02.2016 at place called Mansar between Kandaghat and Solan. Above named person claimed that on 25.02.2016, while he was driving his car bearing registration No.PB-13-AA-7671(Maruti Swift), a truck being driven by respondent No.1, Sh. Sunny Jindal rashly and negligently, hit his car, as detailed hereinabove, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted in the hospital. Deceased, named hereinabove, specifically claimed that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month being a driver and sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month from other sources including horticulture and agriculture. He claimed before the tribunal below that on account of multiple injuries suffered by him, he remained hospitalized at IGMC, Shimla w.e.f.25.02.2016 to 5.4.2016 and during this period, he spent sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/-on his treatment. He claimed that his disability was assessed to the extent of 100% and after his being discharged from IGMC, Shimla, he remained hospitalized in Civil Hospital, Kupvi and also remained regular visitor to Orthopaedic Department IGMC, Shimla. Since on 22.12.2016, above named deceased died in Civil Hospital, Kupvi due to the aforesaid injuries, his LRs got themselves impleaded in the claim petition and pursued the claim put forth by the deceased Dalbir Singh. LRs of deceased Dalbir Singh specifically claimed before the Tribunal below that deceased died in Civil Hospital, Kupvi on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and as such, learned tribunal below while ordering their impleadment, permitted them to pursue the proceedings initiated at the behest of deceased Dalbir Singh.

3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the deceased and thereafter his LRs came to be seriously refuted at the behest of the respondents. Respondent No.1, though in his reply, admitted factum with regard to the accident, but specifically denied that the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving. He claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of deceased Dalbir Singh and since the vehicle in question was duly insured, liability to pay compensation, if any, is of Insurance Company.

4. Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimants on the ground that at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle was under influence of liquor and as such, it cannot be held liable to indemnify him. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied allegation of rash and negligent driving, if any, by driver of the offending vehicle and claimed that deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle. Besides above, appellant-Insurance Company though nowhere disputed factum with regard to treatment of deceased at IGMC, Shimla as well as Civil Hospital, Kupvi, but denied that he was earning Rs. 18000/-per month, as claimed by the claimants/ original claimant.

5. On the basis of afore