Unchallenged oral evidence proves deceased's income despite no documents; 40% future prospects for self-employed under 40; conventional heads fixed at Rs.50,000/- consortium, Rs.20,000/- estate/funeral each per enhanced guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal against the award dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in MAC Petition No. 0100078 of 2011, titled, Smt. Chinta Mani and others vs. Govind Singh and others , whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,23,000/- in favour of respondents No.1 to 6/claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount.

2. The key facts necessary for adjudication of dispute in the present appeal are that respondents No.1 to 6/claimants had preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Dalip Singh, who was husband of respondent No.1, father of respondents No.2 to 4 and son of respondents No.5 and 6 claiming an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of petition. The accident took place on 19.06.2011 at 5.00 a.m. at Village Pasada, P.O. Dhar Gaura, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., involving a car No.HP-06A-1841 being driven by respondent No.2 on the said date. The deceased was travelling in the car which was driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner.

3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased, at the relevant time, was employed as Cook with M/s Shabri Associates, Serang Hydro Power Project, Tapri and drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and was also earning Rs.20,000/- per month from agriculture and horticulture pursuits.

4. The owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident who were respondents No.1 and 2 in the claim petition and respondents No. 7 & 8 respectively in the present appeal filed the joint reply and admitted the factum of accident, however, denied that it is caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, driver in the claim petition.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed separate reply and took preliminary objections qua maintainability and violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was submitted that the vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions and further the respondents were neither possessing valid registration certificate nor driving licence to drive the vehicle.

6. The Tribunal below after framing issues, recorded the evidence led by the parties. The claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.28,23,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of respondents No.1 to 6/claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

7. The Tribunal below held that respondents No.1 to 4 shall be entitled to 20% of the compensation amount each and remaining 20% shall be paid to respondents No. 5 and 6 in equal proportion, being the parents of the deceased.

8. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal, challenging the award on the ground that there is no justification of taking the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month and further awarding 50% on account of future prospects, in the absence of evidence on record. It was also pleaded that since the deceased was self- employed, the award of future prospects was not applicable, in view of the decision rendered in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another , 2