LMV licence suffices for transport vehicle under 7500kg GVW sans endorsement; self-employed carpenter notional income Rs.800/day on oral evidence; 1/4th personal expenses deduction (4 dependents); 10% future prospects (50-60 age); consortium Rs.50,000/each.

JUDGMENT :

JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is against the award dated 08.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the claim petition bearing No. MAC Petition RBT No. 144/2014, titled, Kaushalya Devi and others vs. Ashwani Kumar and others, preferred by the claimants was allowed and they were awarded a sum of Rs. 33,11,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the award amount.

2. For deciding the appeal, the parties herein as referred to as they were in the claim petition.

3. The claimants had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident on account of death of Uttam Chand, who was husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of claimants No.3 and 4. The accident had taken place on 10.10.2014 involving Crusier Trax HP-01B-0464, when the driver of vehicle, who was respondent No.1 in the claim petition, struck the vehicle with the deceased, who was standing outside his furniture shop at village Kohdra, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and fell unconscious. He was taken to hospital at CHC Barsar through ambulance, wherefrom he was referred to Regional Hospital Una. From Una he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but he succumbed to the injuries near the gate of Regional Hospital Una and Doctors declared him dead.

4. As per the pleadings in the claim petition, the deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, since he was running a shop and self-employed. It was submitted that the claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply to the claim petition and pleaded that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, since he without waiting for the clearance of the road all of a sudden jumped to cross the road by running from left to right side of the road at a sharp turn, though respondent No.1 applied brakes to stop the vehicle.

6. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed separate reply and took preliminary objections that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle at the time of accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any claim. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was not holding a valid route permit and further the vehicle was not fit to ply on the road. On merits, the insurance company has not specifically pleaded that the amount claimed is highly excessive. In reply to para 5 of the claim petition, where the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.35,000/- per month, it was pleaded that the para No.5 of the petition is wrong, incorrect and therefore denied.

7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues in the claim petition:-

1. Whether on 10.10.2014 around 3.00 PM at village Kohdra, District Una, Uttam Chand died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Crusier Trax No. HP-01B-0464 by respondent No. 1 Ashwani Sharma, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are