The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the insurer to initially pay compensation, the consideration of future prospects in compensation assessment, and the correct deduction for personal expenses.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J. (Oral). - Aggrieved with the inadequate compensation and total exoneration of respondent No. 3 (insurer of the offending truck) vide award dated 08.10.2011 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for brevity, Tribunal), claimants are before this court by way of an appeal.

2. Brief facts first. On 09.06.2010, deceased Jeet Ram was going from village Ghanauli to village Makauri Khurd, on his Hero Honda motor cycle with two pillion riders namely, his domestic help Raju and one Ved Parkash. When they were near Dashmesh Dhaba, a truck bearing No. HP-11-0696 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 Ramesh Kumar hit the motor cycle from behind. From the impact of the hit, all three motor cycle riders fell down and sustained injuries. Later, on 14.09.2010, Jeet Ram succumbed to the injuries sustained in accident. On these allegations, the widow, minor children of Jeet Ram and his parents filed the claim petition before the MACT. Respondent No. 1, 2 and respondent No. 3 were arrayed as driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck, respectively.

3. Respondents No. 1-2 filed written statement denying that the said truck was involved in the accident.

4. Respondent No. 3/insurer set up a similar plea. It also denied liability saying that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence. Also pleaded that there was no valid route permit, RC and fitness certificate of the truck in question.

5. Learned Tribunal framed following issues:

1. Whether Jeet Ram died in a road accident caused by respondent No. while driving truck No. HP-11-0696 in a rash and negligent manner ? OPP

2. Whether claimants are entitled to the compensation as prayed for ? If so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No. was not holding a valid driving licence, route permit, RC and fitness certificate of the truck No. HP-11-0696 at the time of accident ? OPR

4. Whether the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased ? OPR-3

5. Relief.

6. On appraisal of record/evidence, the learned Tribunal held that Jeet Ram died due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. It decided issue no.l accordingly. Under issue No. 2, it held that the claimants were entitled to compensation from respondents No. 1-2. It held that respondent No.3/insurer was not liable to pay any compensation. Under issue No. 3, it was held that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence and that the truck did not have any valid route permit for being plied in the area, where accident took place. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the claimants and holding that they were entitled to and respondents No. 1-2 jointly and severally were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 11,62,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim petition. As against the insurer (respondent No. 3), the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was 32 years of age at the time of his death. He was running a liquor Ahata (tavern) and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. He left behind eight dependents/claimants. He further canvasses that the Tribunal erred firstly in assessing income as merely Rs. 8,000/- per month; secondly by not making any addition thereto for future prospects of the deceased and thirdly deducting 1/4th out of it for personal expenses of the deceased and thus awarded inadequate compensation and also wrongly absolved the insurer of the offending truck.

8. Vide an interim order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the learned bench then seized of the matter, Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal giving it the right to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation in view of the judgments rendered by Apex Court in case titled as "National Insurance Company Limited