Compensation for fatal accidents must consider future prospects, especially for self-employed individuals under 40, as established in relevant Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

The instant miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the award dated 21.12.2015 passed in Claim Case No. 02/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh.

2. The brief facts leading to this Miscellaneous Appeal are that the claimants Tapeshwar Prasad and three others had filed a claim petition with these averments that on 25.06.2007 at 06:30 AM the wife of petitioner no.1 Tapeshwar Prasad alongwith other family members were going to Rajrappa by the Jeep No. JH-02-E-3343 and when they reached near Village Kaitha, 8 Km east of Police Station Ramgarh a bus no. BR-14-P-2711 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) hit the Jeep as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and FIR bearing no. 285/2007 under section 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Ramgarh Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was running a provision store and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

3. On behalf of op no.1 the owner of the bus no. BR-14-P-2711, no one appears despite service of notice hence the claim petition was proceeded against him ex-parte.

4. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed written statement and took several plea inter-alia that the claim petition was not maintainable. Respondent no. 1 the driver of the offending bus had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.16,981/- on 04.06.2007 but the same returned unpaid with the remark “No Fund” as such the insurance policy got automatically cancelled in view of the terms and condition of the said policy since the offending vehicle had no valid policy at the relevant date of accident as such the respondent no.2 insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.

5. The Respondent no.4 and 5 the owner and driver of the Jeep respectively also filed the written statement alleging that the said accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus. Respondent no.5 was driving the Tata Specio Jeep bearing registration no. JH-02-E-3343 with a valid and effective driving license.

6. The respondent no.6 the insurance company of the Jeep also filed the written statement containing therein that the said accident was caused on account of the negligence of driver of the offending bus.

7. The learned Tribunal while disposing the claim petition framed following issues:

(I) Whether the claim case is maintainable in the eye of law?

(II) Whether the deceased Uma Devi was killed due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No. BR-14-P-2711?

(III) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation arising out of this motor accident and if so to what extent and against whom of the O.P's?

8. On behalf of claimant examined altogether five witnesses, CW1- Tapeshwar Saw, CW2- Ashok Kumar, CW3- Sadan Kumar, CW4- Manohar Lal, CW5- Shambhu Prasad Mandal and in documentary evidence filed Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-9 i.e. Ext.-1 Certified copy of FIR No.285/2007, Ext.2 Certified copy of charge sheet, Mark-X Copy of postmortem report of deceased, Mark-X/1 copy of owner book of offending vehicle, Mark-X/2 Copy of driving license of OP No.3, Mark-X/3 Copy of Insurance Cover Note of offending vehicle, Mark-X/4 Copy of Tax Token of offending vehicle, Mark-X/5 Copy of Fitness certificate, Mark-X/6 Copy of DL of jeep Driver Sanjay Kumar, Mark-X/7 Copy of DL of driver Surender Kumar, Mark-X/8 Copy of Insurance Policy of Jeep and Mark-X/9 Copy of Death certificate of deceased.

9. On behalf of respondent no.2 Insurance Company of the offending bus filed following documents: Exhibit-A Certified copy of letter issued by respondent no.2, Exhibit-B Certified copy of Insurance Policy of offending vehicle, Mark-Y Copy of Cheque dated 04.06.2007, Mark-Y/1 Copy of cheque returning memo dated 14.06.2007, Mark-Y/2 Copy of Cheque dishonour register.

10. The learned Tribunal after hearing the rival submission of the learned counsel of parties passed the impugned judgment of the award for the amount o