IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the compensation awarded to claimants, affirming the deceased's status as a goods owner and assessing income based on evidence rather than minimum wage standards.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) has assailed award dated 27.10.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P.( for short ‘the tribunal’) in MAC No. 5- S/2 of 2015, whereby respondents No. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as claimants) have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,75,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition till realization.

2. The claimants being legal heirs and dependents of deceased Zakir Husain filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation on account of death of Sh. Zakir Hussain, who had died in a road accident involving vehicle No.DL-1GC-2621.

3. It was the case of the claimants that on 1.8.2014 Sh. Zakir Hussain was travelling in aforesaid vehicle alongwith his goods. At about 9:00 PM, the said vehicle got involved in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 8 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘driver’). The vehicle involved in the accident was stated to be owned by respondent No. 7 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘owner’) and insured by the insurer (appellant herein)

4. The owner and driver filed their joint replies. It was denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. It was disclosed that the vehicle at the time of accident was insured by the insurer. The driver of the vehicle was also stated to be holding a valid and effective driving license.

5. The insurer filed its reply and did not deny to be under a contract of insurance with the owner in respect of vehicle involved in the accident. It was, however, alleged by the insurer that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the policy as also the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. The specific defence of the insurer was that it was not liable to indemnify the owner as the deceased Sh. Zakir Hussain was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The objection as to the validity of driving license of the driver was also taken.

6. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(1). Whether Sh. Zakir Hussain died in a road side accident on 01.08.2014 at about 9.00 P.M. involving vehicle No. DL-1GC-2621 driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP

(2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP

(3) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPRs

(4) Whether the claimants have not approached to this tribunal with clean hands, if so, its effect? OPR-1 and 2

(5) Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger, if so, its effect? OPR-3

(6) Whether the vehicle in question was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR-3.

(7) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-3

(8) Relief.

Issues No 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative. All other issues were decided in negative. Accordingly, the petition was allowed awarding compensation in favour of the claimants, as noticed above.

7. The insurer has assailed the findings of learned Tribunal. Exception has been taken to the findings of learned tribunal in so far as the deceased was held to be occupant of vehicle in the capacity of owner of goods. The quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants has also been challenged. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Sh. Zakir Hussain at Rs. 10,000/- without any evidence to that effect. According to the insurer, learned Tribunal should have been guided by the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time. Further, the award of loss of future prospects @ 50% has also been assailed as being excessive. In addition, assessment of compensat