The court affirmed the use of the multiplier method for compensation calculation in motor accident claims, emphasizing deductions based on the number of dependents and adherence to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”), has been filed by the appellant/ insurer against award dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Sarkaghat Court) in claim petition No. 14/2017.

2. A motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-28A-3144 met with an accident on 09.09.2016 at about 9.10 A.M. at village Parchhu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. At the time of accident, the motor cycle was driven by Nishant Verma respondent No.2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the owner-cum-rider). One Gian Chand who was on the pillion suffered injuries in the accident and as a result thereof died.

3. The wife of deceased Gian Chand filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of his late husband. The deceased was stated to be 56 years old at the time of accident. His monthly income was alleged to be Rs.60,838/- (Rs.48,838 earned from salary and Rs.12,000/- from agriculture). The deceased was working as Kanungo at Rakhoh Circle, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi.

4. The claimant alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-rider.

5. The owner-cum-rider filed his reply. The factum of accident was admitted. The deceased disclosed that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant/insurer.

6. The appellant/insurer also filed its separate reply. The objection was taken that the particulars of insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident and driving licence held by the rider were not supplied to it, in absence of which, no effective defence could be put up. In alternative, it was submitted that the rider was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The violation of terms and conditions of the policy was also alleged. It was specifically stated that the rider on the pillion was not covered under the policy of insurance.

7. In rejoinder filed by the claimant, it was clarified that all the documents viz., copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report, copy of death certificate, copy of insurance, copy of driving licence, copy of registration certificate and copy of salary statement of deceased had been supplied to the insurer.

8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 15.06.2018:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 and caused death of petitioner, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as claimed? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective licence at the time of accident? OPR

5. Whether the respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the petition is collusive one, as alleged? OPR

7. Whether the pillion rider is not covered under the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR

8. Whether the insurance company is entitled to defend the instant application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act

9. Relief.

9. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative. Rest of the issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.40,20,932/- was assessed as compensation payable to the claimant and other legal representatives of deceased. In addition, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation was also ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization.

10. The learned Tribunal has held that except for the income of deceased from the salary paid to him by his employer, no other income being earned by him from any other source was proved. The salary of the deceased was considered on the basis of a document Ext. PW-2/A at Rs.48,838/- per month. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the monthly income of deceased towards his personal expenses and the net contribution of the deceased towards t