Notional income for 19-year-old professional students in 2018 accident upheld at Rs.15,000-20,000 p.m. per precedents; conventional heads fixed at Rs.40,000 consortium (x3), Rs.15,000 estate/funeral each, 10% enhancement per Pranay Sethi. (28 words)

JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, Judge

All these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of facts and law arise.

2. On 11.05.2018, a motor vehicle accident took place at place near KTS School, Sainj, District Solan, involving a motorcycle No.HP-64-8775 and truck No. HP-63B-2051. The rider of the motorcycle Ashish Tyagi and the person on the pillion, Sahil Thakur, both aged 19 years, sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in their death.

3. Legal representatives/dependents of both the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Claim petition filed by legal representatives/dependents of deceased Ashish Tyagi was registered as MAC Petition No.33-S/2 of 2018 and the claim petition filed by the legal representatives/dependents of deceased Sahil Thakur was registered as MAC Petition No.34-S/2 of 2018 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan (for short, “the Tribunal”).

4. In both the cases, the cause of accident was attributed to the driver of the truck. It was alleged that the truck was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof, the motorcycle of the deceased persons had been hit by the truck.

5. Deceased Ashish Tyagi was a student of B.Tech. 4th Semester in Shoolini University, Solan and deceased Sahil Thakur was student of 2nd semester of BSc Hotel Management and Hospitality in the same University.

6. In the case of Ashish Tyagi, his mother, father and brother were the claimants, whereas in the case Sahil Thakur his mother, father and sister filed the claim petition.

7. The owner and driver of the truck had jointly contested the claim petitions by denying the cause of accident as alleged by the claimants. As per the owner and driver of the truck, the truck was being driven in a slow speed and there was no rashness or negligence that could be attributed to the driver of the truck. The factum of the offending truck being insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant-insurer herein) was also disclosed. Remaining averments of the petition were denied in generality.

8. The appellant-insurer by way of a separate reply had sought to absolve itself from the liability to indemnify the insured by alleging serious breaches of terms and conditions of the policy. Objections were raised as to validity of driving licence of the driver besides registration certificate and permit etc. of the truck. It was also alleged that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

9. Learned Tribunal has found the cause of accident attributable to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. The allegations regarding breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance have been held not proved.

10. The claimants had examined an eye witness to the accident as their witness. Witness Prateek Guleria had appeared on behalf of the claimants before learned Tribunal and deposed that the accident had taken place in his presence. He had further stated that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. Said Prateek Guleria was also the informant of the incident to the police and it was on his information that the FIR relating to incident had been registered. The evidence had also been led to the extent that after investigation, the challan