IMPORTANT POINT : : (1) While compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, yet it should also not be assessed in a liberal fashion so as to make it a bounty to claimant.
(2) Conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of principle of equitability.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in these three Appeals is a common Award dated 27th June 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shopian (for brevity “Tribunal”), allowing three Claim Petitions and directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation to respondents/claimants therein. The appeals are taken up, discussed and decided ad seriatim.

Mac App no.29/2019 (Titled: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manzoor Ahmad Wani and others)

2. A claim petition, bearing File no.16/Claim, was filed by respondents 1&2/claimants before the Tribunal, averring therein that on 8th July 2010, an accident took place, in which their son, namely, Kifayat Hussain, who was driver of offending vehicle (platform), bearing Registration no.JK02AE-4947, died, besides other casualties. On the basis of case set up, claimants/respondents sought compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs along with interest and costs.

3. Appellant Insurance Company filed Written Objections, insisting therein that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence and that appellant was not liable to pay compensation as owner of offending vehicle had violated terms and conditions of insurance policy.

4. The Tribunal, given the pleadings of parties, framed following issues for determination of claim petition: –

(i) Whether on 08.07.2010, the accused Kifayaz Ahmad Wani S/o Ahmad Wani R/o Heerpora Shopian who was driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.4947-JK02E died in an accident as he was driving the said vehicle at Sarbal Mughal Road when he lost the control of the said vehicle? (OPP)

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation on account of the death of the deceased as being his legal heir and to what extent of compensation they are entitled to and from whom? (OPP)

(iii) Whether the respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners on the count that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver? (OPR)

(iv) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner insured of the offending vehicle as he has violated terms and conditions of the policy insurance? (OPR)

(v) Relief.

5. Claimants/respondents produced and examined four witnesses. Appellant Insurance Company produced two witnesses in support of its stand. In terms of impugned common Award, the Tribunal directed appellant Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.13,10,064/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition, to claimants/respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

7. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that appellant Insurance Company demonstrated before the Tribunal that claim petition filed by respondents/claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable against appellant Insurance company for the reason that Section 163-A being the social security provision providing for a distinct scheme to those with annual income up to Rs.40,000/-. His further submission is that the Tribunal has of its own taken income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month which comes to Rs.72,000/- annually and after deducting 1/3 personal living expenses, took annual income of deceased of Rs.48,000/-, and applied multiplier of 17 as the age of deceased was 23 years and Rs.8,16,000/- was awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. He has also stated that claimants are not entitled to compensation on other heads, like loss of estate and funeral expenses. He avers that the Tribunal has not kept in view amendment made to Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act; in terms whereof compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs is to be paid in case of death, but this aspect has been ignored by the Tribunal while passing impugned Award.

8. In the above backdrop, it is mentioned here that Secti