Insurer liable despite fake driving licence unless owner knowingly permitted unlicensed driver; compensation: 40% future prospects for self-employed youth, 50% bachelor personal expenses deduction, multiplier on deceased's age.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) against the award dated 15.03.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP, in MACP No.97-N/II/2013/2010, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Shri Om Parkash, who was son of petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 herein and brother of petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). It was averred by the petitioners that on 10.02.2010, Om Parkash was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-38-3363 to Jassur from Niazpur (Nurpur) and at about 1:50 PM, a tractor bearing registration No.HP-38A-9524, which was being driven by respondent No.1-Kewal, came from Jassur side and hit the motorcycle from wrong side, due to which, Om Parkash and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Om Parkash was shifted to Civil Hospital, Nurpur, but he succumbed to the injuries at about 4:45 PM on the same day.

3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 24 years old and he was pursuing professional course of Hotel Management and he had also done diploma in Hotel Management in the year 2008. The father of the deceased was employed in BSNL as Supervisor, who died while in service and deceased Om Parkash could have been given job on compassionate grounds, for which, he was eligible. After completion of the course of Hotel Management, the deceased could have earned more than Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was unmarried and the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased, and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tractor in question was owned by Sukesh Pathania, who was respondent No.2 in the claim petition and he died during pendency of the present appeal and thereafter his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents No.4(a) to 4(c). The offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred that due to untimely death of Om Parkash, the petitioners had suffered a great loss, hence, they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their joint reply to the claim petition, raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action and locus-standi. On merits, it has been averred that respondent No.1 was driving the Tractor at a slow speed when the motorcycle, being driven by the deceased at the very high speed, hit the same on the rear part of the tractor. It was further averred that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1.

5. In the reply filed by respondent No.3/ United India Insurance Company, the preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability, driver of the Tractor was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was not insured with it, maintainability, the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. On merits, it was averred that no accident had tak