Motor accident compensation: prove accident/negligence on preponderance of probability; add 50% future prospects to income for public employees under 40; multiplier by deceased's age; deduct slab-wise tax and 50% personal expenses for bachelor; include enhanced consortium/conventional heads.

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. 34/2012, titled as Jeewana Devi 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. Claimant Jeewana Devi, unfortunate mother of Shri Sandeep Chauhan, has 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 her son Sandeep 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 claimant has sought the relief on the ground that on 18.10.2011, her son Sandeep Chauhan, along with Matul 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 son of the claimant.

3.3. Consequently, the rider, as well as, the pillion rider 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 claimant, her son, at the time of his death, was about 25 years of age and was working as Assistant Engineer in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. As per the claimant, 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.50,00,000/- (fifty lacs), along with 18% interest 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