The court emphasized the importance of raising objections to compensation before the Tribunal and cited specific legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the present Appeal the appellant-Insurance Company has thrown challenge to the Award dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in the Claim Petition titled Zahoora Rehman & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co., on the following two grounds only:-

2. (i) The learned Tribunal while determining the compensation has not considered the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to full salary for a period of seven years and it was obligatory on the part of the learned Tribunal to consider this fact.

(ii) The grant of interest by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is not in accordance with the law and on account of delay in the trial committed by the respondents.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed the petition for grant of compensation on account of the death of Shri Abdul Rehman Ahanger S/o Ghulam Ahmad Ahanger R/o Babapora, Zoonimar, Srinagar, who met with road accident on 29.03.2013 at the age of 46 years. It was pleaded that the deceased was Government employee working as Junior Mechanic in PWD R&B, Right River Circle Road Division, Srinagar, drawing the salary of Rs.23,500/- per month and was contributing the major portion of the salary towards his family. The claimants-respondents 1 to 3 have claimed compensation of Rs.78.00 lacs before the learned Tribunal. The appellant here-in-Insurance Company filed the response to the said petition, wherein the appellant denied their liability and also submitted that the claimants have placed nothing on record to determine the factum of employment of the deceased in the department (supra) and also no certificate with regard to the salary of the deceased has been placed on record to substantiate that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs.23,500/- per month.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether on 29.03.2013 deceased Abdul Rehman Ahanger while moving on his cycle on correct side of the road at Ali Jan Road, Soura, Srinagar was hit by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK01D-3171 being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which deceased got seriously injured and succumbed to his injuries? OPP

2. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the vehicle and insured (respondent No. 3) knowing that he (respondent No. 2) was not having valid and effective D/L employed him as driver for plying the offending vehicle without route permit and thereby committed breach of policy conditions, if so, what would be its effect on the claim petition? OPR-1

3. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative then whether petitioners are entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

5. The claimants-respondent 1 to 3 herein examined respondent No. 1 and also Noor Mohammad Ahanger, Javeed Ahmad Ahanger and Sajad Rasool Dar (Junior Assistant, R&B) as witnesses in support of their claim, however, the appellants herein did not lead any evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence and hearing the parties, learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.33,14,304/- minus interim compensation @ 7.5% per annum.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds already narrated in the appeal and has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMAM No. 116/2017, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasima Begum & Ors. decided on 20.03.2019.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2018 SC 5034, Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. The first ground raised by the appellants in the present memo of appeal is that the learned Tribunal was under obligation to consider the fact that the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 h