IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurer to establish a fundamental breach of the policy to avoid liability and the determination of notional income in the absence of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), against the award dated 31.03.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P., in MAC Petition No.25/2013 (395/2013), with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that petitioners Pritam Chand and Kanta Devi, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal below, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of rupees twenty lacs on account of death of their son Shri Gurmeet Singh. However, during pendency of the said claim petition, petitioner No.1 Pritam Singh (father of deceased Gurmeet Singh) died and subsequently his legal heirs, namely, Suman Devi and Neelama Devi, were brought on record as petitioners No.1(a) & 1(b), respectively. As per the petitioners, deceased Gurmeet Singh died in a motor accident on 26.01.2013, involving vehicle (Mahindra Maxi Cab) bearing registration No.HP-02C-0145, near Lunni Char, Tehsil Bharmour District Chamba, H.P. It was further averred that on 26.01.2013 the deceased hired the vehicle in question and he was traveling from Village Siunr to Holi, which was being driven by one Devender Kumar (respondent No.4 herein) in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle reached near village Machhater, the driver could not control it and the vehicle rolled down and fell in Ravi river, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and ultimately died in District Hospital, Chamba on 28.01.2013

3. As per the petitioners, the deceased was 24 years old and he was working as mason and apart from this, he used to assist his parents in agriculture and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The offending vehicle was owned by one Sarola Ram (respondent No.5 herein) and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred that the deceased was hale and hearty young man, hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of rupees twenty lacs.

4. The Insurance Company/appellant filed reply to the claim petition, wherein preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability, that the vehicle was over-loaded with 14 passengers against the seating capacity of 10, it was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules and it was not having valid route permit/fitness certificate. On merits, it was admitted that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle, which was overloaded and the insured committed breaches to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

5. The driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.4 herein) in his reply to the claim petition raised preliminary objection of maintainability and on merits, he denied the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge. He averred that he was not the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-02C-0145.

6. The owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.5 herein) in his reply to the claim petition, raised preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition and averred that the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Insurance company, hence, the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioners. On merits, the occurrence of accident as well as the death of the deceased was admitted and it was also admitted that the vehicle was owned by him. As per him, the petitioners were not dependents upon the deceased and the amount claimed was excessive. It was also admitted that the offending vehicle was hired by the deceased.

7.