The court established that the compensation for death in a motor accident must accurately reflect the deceased's potential future income, utilizing the appropriate multiplier based on age rather than dependent's age.

JUDGMENT : 
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were petitioners/claimants before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 03.08.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby MAC Petition No. 44-S/2 of 2010, filed by the petitioners-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- alongwith pending and future interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realization of the amount and respondent No. 2-ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2 herein) was saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-claimants, i.e., Smt. Meera Devi and Shri Hari Krishan, who were parents of the deceased Surender Alias Rommy, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of their son- Surender @ Rommy, who died in motor accident on 03.12.2010, near Gujar Kotha, Police Station Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P.. The deceased was working as cleaner with respondent No. 1-Shri Jagdish Chand, on his truck, having registration No. HP12-A-6383, and he was getting salary of Rs.7000/- per month with Rs.100/- daily allowance. On 03.10.2010, offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HP12-A-6383, was loaded with apple boxes at Sungari and was enroute to Chandigarh. The driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Gujar Kotha, around 02:30 p.m., he lost control over the vehicle and also due to heavy rainfall the danga (retaining wall) of the road collapsed suddenly and the offending vehicle fell into the stream. As per the claimants, the driver of the offending vehicle could have avoided the accident, if he had taken due care and precaution. Due to the accident the deceased died on the spot and the matter was reported to the local police. The claimants averred that they being the parents of the deceased were dependent on his income and they sought compensation from the respondents.

3. The respondents, i.e., owner-Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 1) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) contested the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 averred that the petition was not maintainable, as the truck had fallen down due to collapsing of the danga of the road due to heavy rainfall, which was an act of God. He further averred that no rash and negligent act was done by the driver of the offending vehicle, thus the petition was not maintainable. As per respondent No. 1, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company and in case any compensation was liable to be paid, then the same is liable to be paid by respondent No. 2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company contended that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and the vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 1 without RC, permit and fitness certificate and thus it was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also against the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2 further averred that driver of the vehicle was not joined as party, therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it was denied that the salary of the deceased was Rs.7000/- per month plus Rs.100/- daily allowance. Respondent No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On 27.06.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:

“1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by its driver and the deceased died in that acci