The court established that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should include future prospects adjusted for personal expenses, adhering to principles of just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. The above titled appeals are being disposed of, by a common judgment, as both these appeals have arisen out of the award dated 19.10.2016, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in Claim Petition No. 33/2012, titled as Sapna Devi & Another vs. Vikas Guleria & Others.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.

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

3.1. Claimants Sapna Devi and Singro Chauhan, unfortunate wife and mother of Shri Matul Chauhan, have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) seeking compensation on account of death of husband of claimant No.1 Sapna Devi and son of claimant No.2 Singro Chauhan, in road side accident involving vehicle No.HP65-4420, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’), being owned by respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

3.2. The claimants have sought the relief on the ground that on 18.10.2011, her son Matul Chauhan, along with Sandeep Chauhan, was coming back to home on motorcycle No.HP33B-1697, and at about 8.30 p.m., when, they reached at a place Rani-ki-Bain, meanwhile, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner, reached there and hit the motorcycle being driven by the Sandeep Chauhan.

3.3. Consequently, the rider, as well as, the pillion rider (husband of claimant No.1 Sapna Devi and son of claimant No.2 Singro Chauhan) sustained injuries and both, the motorcyclist and the pillion rider, died on the spot. Their dead bodies were taken to hospital for postmortem examination.

3.4. The information regarding the incident was given to the police of Police Station Balh, where FIR No.254/11, dated 18.10.2011, under Sections 279, 201 and 304-A of the IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act, was registered.

3.5. According to the claimants, the deceased, at the time of his death, was about 28 years of age and was working as Forest Guard in Forest Department in Sundernagar, District Mandi and was earning Rs.14807/- per month. As per the claimants, the accident has solely been occurred on account of rash and negligent driving attributed to respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. On the basis of the above facts, the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (thirty lacs), along with interest @ 18% per annum, has been sought from the respondents.

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, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, as no accident had taken place with the bus owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. They have also termed the FIR to be registered on the basis of assumption. They had also alleged that the accident had taken place due to the fault of rider of motorcycle No.HP33B-1697 and according to them, owner, as well as, insurer of the motorcycle has not been impleaded as party, in the present case.

7. On merits, the factum of accident has been denied and the amount of compensation, as claimed in the petition, is also stated to be exaggerated.

8. Insurance Compan