Accident – Personal Expenses – In evaluating notional income of deceased housewife, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses is not to be made.

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. Claimant-appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in a vehicular accident which took place on 23.04.2011.

3. Claimant was 38 years of age at the time of accident. Appellant is a house wife and claimed that she rendered services to the family which can be computed in terms of Rs.6000/- per month. On 23.04.2011, she was a pillion rider on scooter driven by Mehak. At about 10:30 p.m, when they reached near Bharat Nagar at Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, then the offending motorcycle came from opposite direction which was rashly and negligently driven by respondent No.1 and struck against the scooter. Claimant suffered multiple injuries. The husband of the claimant was following the injured. Injured was taken to hospital. On account of head injury, she was referred to Bharat Brain Hospital, Bathinda. Thereafter, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment. Claimant claimed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest as compensation besides claiming Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Under issues No.1 and 2, Tribunal held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The injured-claimant suffered permanent disability to the tune of 30 %. Dr. H.S. Hayer, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bathinda proved the disability certificate issued to the claimant. Tribunal also noticed that respondent No.1 was minor as per birth certificate Ex.R4. No evidence was led under issue No.3 in respect of petition being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the scooter. The onus of this issue was on the respondents, but they preferred to lead no evidence, rather the issue was not pressed at the time of arguments before the Tribunal. Issue was accordingly decided against the respondents. Under issue No.4, Tribunal noticed that respondent No.1 was the minor driver of the offending motorcycle and respondent No.2 was the registered owner, as per registration certificate Ex.R1. The date of birth of respondent No.1 was 19.06.1995 as per birth certificate Ex.C4. The accident took place on 23.04.2011. Therefore, respondent No.1 was proved to be minor and was not competent to possess any driving licence. Issue No.4 was accordingly decided against respondents No.1 and 2 and the same was decided in favour of Insurance Company.

5. Tribunal calculated the compensation on the basis of disability incurred by the claimant-appellant as well as the actual expenses incurred towards medical treatment. In view of bills relating to medical treatment of the claimant, the total expenditure in terms of Ex.C5 to Ex.120 was found to be Rs.3,49,901/-. The amount was rounded off to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, transportation and special diet. In this way, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded to the claimant. The liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company at the first instance with a recovery right from respondent No.2. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid along with interest @ 6 % per annum from 12.09.2011 when the respondents put in appearance in the case. It was also directed that in case the respondents No.2 and 3 failed to satisfy the award within 2 months from the passing of the same, rate of interest to the tune of 9 % per annum would accrue from the date of award. Counsel fee was also assessed to be Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In case of injury, the heads under