The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act in assessing just and reasonable compensation for the dependents of the deceased.

S/Sh. Hemant Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ajay Kumar Singh, who were serving Indian Army in Rashtriya Rifles, suffered injuries while travelling in Bus No. JK02D-1271 from Khellani to Jammu on October 28, 2003, when it turned turtle, near Panchni Nallah, as its driver, after an explosion of an Improvised Explosive Device inside the Bus drove it faster; but failed to control it. All the three persons, who were in the prime of their youth, succumbed to the injuries received in the accident. Their dependents approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu seeking compensation for their death. Their Claims were contested by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited with which the Bus stood insured at the time of accident.

The parties to the Claim Petitions were put to following issues:-

1. “Whether an accident took place on 28.10.2003 at Panchni Nallah near Khellani about 15 kms short of Doda town due to an Improvised Explosive Device exploded inside the offending bus in which Ashok Kumar Yadav, Ajay Kumar Singh and Hemant Kumar Singh sustained fatal injuries?

OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to compensation; if so to what amount and from whom?

OPP.

3. Whether driver of offending bus at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the bus was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and also did not have route permit and fitness certificate etc?

OPR-3.

3-A Whether the claim petition is not maintainable as the accident has taken place due to I.E.D blast which is not covered under the provisions of MV Act?

OPR.

4. Relief. O.P. parties”

On appreciation of evidence led by the parties on the issues aforementioned, the Tribunal decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Claimants and Issue Nos. 3 and 3-A against the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, allowing the Claim Petitions, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,09,200/- in Claim Petition Nos. 352 and 353 each and Rs. 18,01,200/- in Claim Petition No. 198, as compensation for the death of three Army men. Interest @ 7.5% p.a. too was allowed on the amount of compensation. Aggrieved by the Awards dated 30.07.2008 of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed these Miscellaneous Appeals. The Claimants in Claim Petition Nos. 352 and 198 too have filed Cross Appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before considering the submissions advanced at the Bar, reference needs to be made to the dependents of the deceased. Hemant Kumar Singh is survived by Smt Malati Singh, his mother, and Sh. Shivendra Kumar Singh, his father. Ajay Kumar Singh is survived by Indu Devi, his wife, Kumari Sandhya, minor daughter, Rakesh Kumar Singh, minor son and Rameshwari Devi, the mother. Ashok Kumar Yadav is survived by Khusmauti Devi, his wife, Vikas Kumar Yadav and Rohit Kumar yadav, minor sons, Kumari Shikha, minor daughter, and Sarochhana Devi, the mother.

CIMA No. 199/2008:

Questioning the Award of the Tribunal, the appellant's learned counsel submitted that in assessing compensation for death of Hemant Kumar Singh, the Tribunal has erroneously taken as monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8700/- when even on the evidence of the claimants, the monthly income of the deceased would not be more than Rs. 7468/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal was required to deduct one half of the amount from the presumptive income of the deceased which he would have spent on his own had he survived, to assess compensation payable for his death, and the omission of the Tribunal so to do has resulted in awarding huge amount of compensation to the claimants to which they were not entitled in terms of the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents-claimants' learned counsel did not contest the appellant's learned counsel's submission, and rightly so, because the evidence on records would not support the Tribuna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document