The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the liability of the parties involved.

ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J.

1. The appellant-claimant No.3-daughter of deceased Rambhulla has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 09.03.2010 passed in MACT Case No.31 of 06.03.2009 titled as Bahadur and others Vs. Sahid and others on account of death of Rambhulla due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.01.2009.

2. The claimants-Bahadur and Jaswant sons and Binesh daughter of Rambhulla filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") on the averments that on 25.01.2009 at about 06:30 P.M., Rambhulla along with one Kale Khan was going from Behrampur Market towards village Khandsa. When they reached near village Naharpur, Indica car bearing registration No.RJ-14-AT-5110, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed, rashly and negligently came and struck against Rambhulla, who suffered multiple and grievous injuries. He was taken to Ayushman Hospital, Gurgaon where he died subsequently. FIR No.32 dated 25.01.2009 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in Police Station Sadar Gurgaon regarding the accident.

3. The claimants further averred in the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 70 years and earning Rs.7,000/- per month by working as contractor. They spent amount of Rs.30,000/- on hospitalisation, treatment, transportation and last rites of the deceased. The claimants being his legal representatives are entitled to payment of compensation by the respondents jointly and severally with costs and interest.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 initially appeared but subsequently suffered themselves to be proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.3 contested the petition and inter alia pleaded that respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence and respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly denied its liability.

5. Issues were framed and the parties were given opportunity to produce their evidence.

6. On perusal of the evidence produced by the parties and consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal held that Rambhulla died due to injuries suffered in accident caused by rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 of Indica Car, owned by respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.3. The Tribunal held Rambhulla to be aged 70 years at the time of his death and to be incapable of doing any hard labour to earn any amount and on that basis awarded Rs.75,000/- as death compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral, transportation charges etc. and Rs.8,937/- towards expenses incurred on medical treatment of the deceased totalling Rs.93,937/- with costs and interest. The Tribunal held that claimants No. 1 and 2 sons being able bodied and married persons could not be dependent on their deceased father and accordingly held claimant No.3 daughter to be entitled to payment of the compensation amount with costs and interest. The Tribunal further held that respondent No.1 did not have valid and effective driving licence as the same was not endorsed for driving transport vehicle and respondent No.2 did not have any route permit and exonerated respondent No.3-insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured but directed it to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the amount from respondents No.1 and 2.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-claimant No.3 Binesh daughter of deceased Rambhulla has filed the present appeal.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

9. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant No.3 has argued tha