IMPORTANT POINT
.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of FAO Nos.3603 of 2013 and Cross Objection No.31-CII of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Payal Bhola and others and FAO No. 3797 of 2013 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. Payal Bhola and others as these matters arise out of the award dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana.

2. FAO No.3603 of 2013 has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited and cross objections have been filed by the claimants. The only question raised in these two matters is with regard to quantum of compensation.

3. Briefly, it may be noticed that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the widow and two minor children of deceased Vishal Bhola who is stated to have died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.04.2011. It was averred in the claim petition that Vishal Bhola (since deceased) and who was working with Sandhu Automobiles had gone to Stan Auto, G.T.Road, Ludhiana on 12.04.2011 to explore better job prospects. It was stated that while he was standing within the premises of Stan Auto and waiting to meet certain officials, a car bearing registration No.PB-10-DA-Temp-6887 being driven by Ravinder Singh came at a high speed and struck against Vishal Bhola and who succumbed to the injuries on the same very day. Case made out was that Vishal Bhola died on account of rash and negligent driving by Ravinder Singh i.e. driver of the offending vehicle and a compensation amount of Rs.30 lakhs was claimed.

4. Claim petition was contested by Ravinder Singh (respondent No.1) denying the accident itself even though admitting that he was serving as a Service Supervisor in Stan Auto, Ludhiana. Respondent No.2 in the claim petition, namely, Parveen Sharma i.e. owner of the vehicle did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3 also filed a written statement raising the objections that the car in question was not having valid registration certificate and even the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such the Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

5. From the pleadings on parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

1. “Whether deceased Vishal Bhola had died in a road side accident caused by respondent No.1 with rash and negligent driving PB 10DA T 6887? OPP.

2. Whether claimants are entitled for recovery of claim amount, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether petition is not properly verified? OPP

4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPP.

5. Whether respondent No.1 was not possessing valid driving license, as such respondent No.3 is not liable? OPR

6. Relief.”

6. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal recorded a finding against respondent No.1 and in favour of the claimants and held that Ravinder Singh was driving the car rashly and in a negligent manner and has caused the accident on account of which Vishal Bhola has died.

7. Insofar as Issue No.2 is concerned, the age of the deceased has been taken as 39 years based upon the statement of the widow PW-6 Payal Bhola as also the date mentioned in the PAN Card of Vishal Bhola Ex. P8. The annual income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.1,02,500/- on the basis of income tax return adduced on record for the assessment year 2008-09. A cut off 1/4th towards personal expenses was applied. The enhancement of 50% towards future prospects of income has been allowed and by applying the multiplier of 16, a compensation amount of Rs.18,45,000/- was determined. Tribunal has also awarded a total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of dependency, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The total compensation amount awarded is Rs.18,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till