The multiplier for calculating compensation should be based on the age of the deceased, and the loss of future prospects of increased income should be considered pending a decision from the Supreme Court.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

By this appeal, the insurance company that had insured the vehicle (a TATA-1109 four-wheeler), that was stated to have been involved in an accident in which unfortunately one Gopal died, has challenged the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, dated 31.07.2014, awarding Rs.9,35,000/- to his parents, i.e. respondents no.1 and 2 herein.

Respondent no.3 was the driver of the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55-K-2326 and respondent no.4 was the owner of the said vehicle.

2. As per the claim petition filed by respondents no.1 and 2 herein (hereinafter to be referred to as the claimants), their son, Gopal, who was working as a labourer with a labour contractor by the name of Kailash Mandal, had loaded cement slabs of the Shri Balaji Prefel Company, Jhajjar, in the aforesaid vehicle, with the slabs to be unloaded at the Water Treatment Plant at Chandu Budhera. When the vehicle, carrying the deceased Gopal and his colleagues, Laxman Sada, Ram Kumar and the aforesaid Kailash Mandal, reached at the Water Treatment Plant at about 8:00 am on 08.04.2012, respondent no.3 herein, i.e. the driver of the vehicle, namely Jad Nath, was in the process of parking it so as to unload it. The deceased, being a labourer, was standing behind the vehicle to unload it, when respondent no.1 suddenly, as alleged, in a rash and negligent manner, reversed the vehicle without giving any signal or indication, resulting in the deceased coming beneath the rear tyre of the vehicle. He unfortunately died on the spot.

The accident was stated to have been witnessed by the aforenamed persons, after which the respondent-driver is stated to have fled away from the spot.

Hence, it was contended in the petition before the MACT, that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent Jad Nath.

It was further stated that the police had recorded the statement of Kailash Mandal and had thereupon lodged FIR No.33 dated 08.04.2012, in respect of an offence having been committed, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It was further contended that the said driver was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment, in the supervision and control of the owner thereof and with the vehicle having been insured by the present appellant company, i.e. respondent no.3 before the Tribunal, the respondents in the claim petition, were all jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the claimants, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum upon the aforesaid amount.

4. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents in the claim petition, the driver and owner filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to non-maintainability, lack of cause of action and the claim being highly exaggerated. On merits, it was denied that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle, which, it was alleged, had been falsely implicated by the police.

5. The appellant insurance company filed a separate written statement as respondent no.3, taking the same preliminary objections and further contending that the driver of the vehicle was not carrying a valid and effective driving licence and that the company was not liable to pay any compensation, as it was not informed about the accident by the driver and owner of the vehicle, as is mandatorily required under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It was also contended that the petition (filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act) was also not maintainable because the claimants were not “a third party” under that Act.

6. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident has taken place on 8.4.2012 at about 8:00 am due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.HR-55K-2326 driven by respondent no.1 and caused death of Gopal son of Shivjee, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, then what amount of compensation,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document