Judgment

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Award dated 23rd May 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh, (for brevity “Tribunal”), on a Claim Petition no.1/claim, titled Sonam Choron and others v. Thukjay Wangbo and another, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.14,32,180 along with 8% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till final realization, on the grounds mentioned in Appeal on hand.

2. I have gone through the file and considered the matter.

3. It is averred in the Appeal that vehicle (Jeep Taxi) bearing Registration no.JKT-4456, involved in accident, was not insured on the date of accident, i.e. 1st November 2003, with appellant Insurance Company and the alleged policy copy shown before the Tribunal was not issued by concerned Branch, i.e. Residency Road, Srinagar; even the policy does not bear any number and therefore the policy was fake. It is also averred that an FIR was also lodged in police station Kothi Bagh, Srinagar, against owner of vehicle for having been in possession of fake policy. The Tribunal is stated to have erred while holding that appellant Insurance Company has taken many contradictory stands. It is averred that the stand of appellant Insurance Company all along before the Tribunal was that policy in question was fake. Even at the time of passing of interim Award, the plea of policy being fake was taken but the Tribunal passed interim Award dated 8th December 2005. It is maintained that assuming but not admitting that appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation, even then the same is excessive arbitrary and unjust as claimants have failed to prove that deceased was serving in ITBP; even they have not proved salary of deceased on the date of accident. It is also stated that Last Pay Certificate of deceased, i.e. 21st April 2011, which shows that deceased was drawing Rs.6912/- as monthly salary to have been drawn in April 2011 whereas he has died in an accident on 1st November 2003 and even the age of deceased was not proved. The Tribunal is stated to have not been justified in deducting 1/4th of income of deceased on account of personal expenses; besides the Tribunal, without any material on record, enhanced the salary of deceased by 50% on account of future prospects. It is averred that Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of consortium; Rs.12500/- on account of loss of estate; Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses. According to learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, Tribunal erred in directing to pay 8% interest.

4. Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and considered the matter.

5. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal on 6th May 2004, which was diarised and registered as Claim Petition no.17/Claim. Before Tribunal, it was maintained by respondents 1 to 5 that on 1st November 2003, deceased, namely, Tsewang Yangjor son of Nawang Rigzin, was hit by offending vehicle, plied by respondent no.6 herein, near petrol pump at Choglamsar, while he was going to his residence after finishing his duty hours, as a result whereof he succumbed to injuries. According to respondents 1 to 5, deceased was working in ITBP 18th Battalion and was 35 years old at the time of accident and that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month and respondents 1 to 5 had been dependent upon his earnings. On the edifice of averments made in claim petition, respondents 1 to 5 claimed Rs.26.30 Lacs as compensation.

6. Appellant Insurance Company caused its appearance before the Tribunal. It denied the liability to indemnify insured on the ground that offending vehicle was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of