The court emphasized the principle of 'just compensation' in motor accident claims, allowing for enhanced compensation based on future earning potential and dependencies.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) against the award dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2009, titled as Smt. Manju Kumari and others vs. Sh. Thakur Singh and others.

2. By way of award dated 29.09.2012, the learned MACT has allowed the petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4(a) to 4(f) and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,84,000/-, along-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, till realization of the whole amount along-with the litigation expenses which has been quantified at Rs.3,000/-. The ultimate liability to pay the awarded amount has been fasutened upon the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited.

3. The parties, to the present lis, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned MACT.

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

4.1. Petitioners, being widow, sons and mother of Praveen Kumar have filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the respondents being owner, driver, as well as, insurer of vehicle No. HP-33A-5625 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’).

4.2. The petitioners have filed the claim petition on the ground that on 25.10.2009, at about 9.30 p.m. at Ner Chowk near Petrol Pump, Praveen Kumar was going along with one Mast Ram and Sanjay Kumar to a nearby hotel. On the way, he was hit by respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 was driving the said vehicle at a very high speed, as such, he could not control the scooter. Consequently, Praveen Kumar sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He died due to those injuries, after sometime. Respondent No.2 had ran away from the spot along-with offending vehicle.

4.3. The matteur was reported to the police of Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P. The post mortem of the dead body of Praveen was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Mandi.

4.4. The petitioners have also asserted that Sh. Praveen Kumar, at the time of his death, was about 30 years of age and was running the shop of Goldsmith, from where he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4.5. Since, the accident in question has been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, as such, the claimants have asserted their bright past and bleak future.

4.6. Thus, they have prayed that the compensation may kindly be awarded to them.

5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply by taking preliminary objections that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself.

6.1. On merits, the contents of claim petition have mainly been denied, but, the factum of accident has been admitted, but, according to them, the accident in question had taken place duue to the negligence of the deceased himself.

6.2. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that deceased was trying to cross the road in a negligent manner, withhout caring for the offending vehicle.

7. Respondent No.3 has filed its separate reply, in which, the preliminary objections were taken that the petition is not maintainable, driver of the offending vehicl