IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Aggrieved from the award, dated 3.12.2015, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’).

2. Vide award impugned herein, the learned Tribunal has allowed the MAC Petition No. 05 of 2012, titled as, ‘Smt. Shashi versus Shri Mohammad Ali & others”, and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,83,000/-, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of petition, till deposit of the awarded amount. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

3. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, are, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

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

Petitioner, Shashi has filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of her son, namely, Vicky, in a motor accident, involving vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. HP-66-2751 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3.

4.1 According to the petitioner, on 9.11.2011, her son was coming from Bajaura side, in Maruti Car No. CH-01Y-7554. When, he reached at Hat Bajaura, respondent No.2 was parking the offending vehicle on the road side, without taking proper care of the vehicles coming from backside, as a result of which, the offending vehicle hit the Maruti Car No. CH-01Y-7554. Consequently, deceased Vicky sustained grievous injuries, on his head and later on expired.

4.2 It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 manipulated the criminal case wrongly, in order to save himself. According to her, the FIR was registered on wrong and incorrect facts. After the accident, Vicky was taken to the Regional Hospital, Kullu, where, he was declared ‘dead’. His post-mortem was conducted. All these facts have been pleaded to show that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No. 2.

4.3 The petitioner has also pleaded about her bright past and bleak future by pleading that her son was aged about 24 years, at the time of his death, and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is her further case that her son was doing the business of selling potatos and shawls, by moving from one place to another.

4.4 It is her admitted case that FIR No. 224 of 2011, dated 9.11.2011, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered against her son. She has termed the said FIR to be wrong. According to her, it was respondent No. 2, who was responsible for the accident in question.

4.5 On the basis of above facts, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

5. When, put to notice, the claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed the joint reply, by taking preliminary objections that the accident in question had not taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, rather, son of petitioner was driving the car in question in rash and negligent manner. As such, his vehicle, i.e. car No. CH-01Y-7554, had dashed against with the stationary offending vehicle, owned by respondent No. 1 and being driven by respondent No. 2.

5.1 The petition is also stated to be non-maintainable; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owner of vehicle No. CH-01Y-7554 has not been impleaded as party.

5.2 On merits, contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge. However, registration of FIR No. 224 of 2011, dated 9.11.2011, has not been disputed.

5.3 The Insurance Company has filed its separate reply, by taking prel