Compensation for motor vehicle accident must accurately factor in deceased's income, dependency needs, and established legal standards for future earnings and expense deductions.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were petitioners/claimants before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners/claimants”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 30.10.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 1-Brij Lal (owner of the offending vehicle).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-claimants, Smt. Sudha Devi, wife and Shri Deepak and Shri Sanju sons of Shri Gagan (deceased), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal below, wherein they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent No. 1- Brij Lal and respondent No. 2-ICICI Lombard, Motor Insurance, on account of death of Shri Gagan, which took place on 15.06.2009, due to the rash and negligent use of truck, bearing registration No. HP-63-5015, by its driver.

2(a). The petitioners averred that deceased (Gagan) was a fisherman and labourer and he used to earn Rs.9000/- per month. On 15.06.2009, on the request of the driver of the aforesaid truck that the cement loaded in the truck had to be unloaded, the deceased boarded the truck in district Kinnaur, therefore, the deceased was travelling in the aforesaid truck as employee of respondent No. 1, as the services of the deceased were required for unloading of the goods. As per the petitioners, the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, the truck fell down the hill near village Jaisi. The driver of the truck, i.e., one Pappu and the deceased died in the accident.

3. The petitioners alleged that at the time of the accident, they were totally dependent upon the deceased, thus they were entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the amount. The vehicle at the time of the accident was insured with ICICI Lombard, i.e., respondent No. 2 and it was bound to indemnify the award.

4. Respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the vehicle, in his reply admitted the accident and death of the deceased, but he denied that the decased was engaged by him as labourer in the aforesaid vehicle. He prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Respondent No. 2, i.e., ICICI Lombard Insurance Company, in its reply, raised preliminary objection of cause of action and maintainability of the petition and on merits averred that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle at the relevant time and further that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, which was not meant for carrying passengers. It was further averred that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus insurance company was not liable to indemnify the award amount. It was also averred that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven without any valid registration and fitness certificate.

6. On 01.03.2011 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:

“1. Whe