IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from landmark cases to determine just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as notional income, loss of dependency, and conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. Since both these petitions are offshoots of impugned award dated 06.06.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, they are taken up together for adjudication.

FAO No. 21 of 2014

2. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for short “the Act”), against the award, dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) seeking compensation, was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioners, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award by dismissing the claim petition of the petitioners with costs throughout.

FAO No. 37 of 2014

3. On the other hand, the instant petition (FOA No. 37 of 2014) has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 173 of the Act against the award dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, whereby the claim petition filed by them was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- in their favour alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, with a prayer to allow their appeals throughout with costs, by modifying the award and consequently awarding a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as claimed by them in their claim petition.

4. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, i.e. Ms. Meridian Medicare Ltd. Shamti, Shri Devender Kumar and United Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) whereby compensation for the death of their son on account of a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 21.06.2011, on National Highway-22, at place Din Raat Dhaba near Kumarhatti, was sought.

5. As per the petitioners/claimants, on 21.06.2011 the deceased was travelling with his maternal grand uncle (Nana) and father on scooter No. HP-14-6940. Nana of the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle and father of the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. The deceased was sitting in between the driver and pillion rider and around 06:40 p.m. when the vehicle reached at a place known as Din Raat Dhaba on National Highway-22, near Kumarhatti, Innova Car, bearing registration No. HP-14A-5170 came from Kumarhatti side, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed by Devender Kumar, respondent No. 2, before the learned Tribunal below (respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 21 of 2014) struck against the scooter No. HP-14-6940. Due to the accident, the scooterist, pillion rider and the child traveling on the aforesaid scooter sustained grievous injuries and the child ultimately died. The petitioners/claimants, being parents of the deceased child, by filing the claim petition, sought compensation of rupees ten lacs from the respondents for the death of their son. As per the petitioners, M/s Meridian Medicare Ltd. was the owner of the offending vehicle No. HP-14A-5170, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer of the offending vehicle, thus they are liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) filed separate replies to the claim petition, wherein they raised preliminary objections, viz. maintainability of the petition, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, they have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the claim petition. They denied that the petitioner was a Supervisor in House Keeping Agency in Ultimate Utility, Phase-VI, Industrial Area, Mohali. The replying responden