The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of assessment of compensation in motor accident claims, as laid down in Sarla Verma’s case and affirmed in the case of Pranay Sethi.

Judgment

In this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) has assailed the award dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in file No. 85 titled ‘Nirmal Devi and others vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd and others’ whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimants’) have been held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,13,500/- on account of death of Sh. Dewan Chand, the husband of clamant No.1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4.

2 The appeal is preferred primarily on following grounds:

(i) That the owner of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid route permit and that the insurer had filed an application before the Tribunal for summoning of owner of the offending vehicle to prove the aforesaid aspect, but the Tribunal failed to issue summon to the owner at the address provided in the claim petition and, therefore, denied the insurer an opportunity to prove that the owner was not possessing a valid route permit.

(ii) That as per the official record of Army, one Champa Dogra has been shown as the wife of the deceased Dewan Chand and, therefore, the claimant No.1- Nirmal Devi was not entitled to maintain the claim petition, more so, when she had failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that she was the wife of the deceased.

(iii) That the deceased was more than 72 years old and, therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in fixing his monthly income as Rs.4500/- per month from agricultural sources.

(iv) That the claimant Nos. 2 to 4 were all major sons and were, thus, not dependent on the income of the deceased and the Tribunal ignoring the said aspect erroneously applied deduction on account of personal living expenses and awarded compensation to them.

3. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the claimants opposes the appeal on the ground that the award passed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and, therefore, he has sought enhancement by way of cross-objections (CCROS 21/2017). He submits that in his cross-objections, he has placed on record a family pension order from the Indian Army which clearly depicts that claimant No.1 was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and had married the deceased after the death of his first wife namely Champa Dogra. It is also urged that the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month from agricultural sources and omitted to take into account the income which the deceased was getting by way of pension from the Indian Army.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants also finds fault with the sums awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The accident that occurred on 03.04.2012 in which the deceased lost his life is not disputed, nor is the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is, however, contended by Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the insurer that the insurer had taken a specific plea with regard to invalidity of the route permit of the offending vehicle, but the Tribunal did not allow it to prove the same by leading its evidence. He claims to have moved an application for summoning the owner to the witness box but that too was denied by the Tribunal to the insurer arbitrarily.

7. With a view to appreciating the contention of learned counsel for the insurer, I went through the objections filed by the insurer before the Tribunal and find that the insurer had taken a general objection that the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was being driven without valid and effective driving licence, route permit and fitness certificate and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

8. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following iss