The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation payable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be as per the schedule applicable on the date of the award, and the claimant is entitled to the higher amount if the schedule is amended during the pendency of the claim petition.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J (Oral). - Before this Court is a mother (appellant), having lost her young son, all of nine years age, in a vehicular accident on 24.06.2017. Appellant is aggrieved against meagerness of compensation determined vide the impugned award dated 05.10.2018 whereby a mere Rs.2,00,5000/- has been awarded qua the accidental death of her son. Claimant/appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1988'), as it then existed, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') seeking compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/-, against the Insurer and owner of the car.

2. Brief factual narrative first. On the fateful day, the appellant's deceased son was travelling with his parents in an Alto Car, owned and driven by his father (respondent No. 1 herein). They were returning from Dhamtan Sahib to village Daska. At the relevant time, when they came out of village Dhamtan Sahib towards village Kalan, suddenly, a cow came in front of the moving car on the road. In a natural human instinct to save the cow, the driver lost balance of the car. Resultantly, the vehicle fell in a ditch near the road. Occupants of the car were injured. Claimant/appellant's son Prabhmehar Singh @ Gurmehar Singh suffered multiple injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospsital, Tohana, but succumbed to his injuries suffered in the accident.

3. Owner of the car (father of deceased)/respondent no.1 resisted the claim petition denying his liability, saying that the accident did not take place due to his negligence. He pleaded that Car was duly insured and liability, if any, was/is that of Insurance Company.

4. On the other hand, Insurance Company raised objections qua its liability, pleading, inter alia, that owner/ driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It opposed the claim calling it as totally fictitious. A false DDR qua accident was got registered at the Police Station. Further objection was taken that deceased being son of the driver/ owner was not a third party in terms of the Insurance contract. Deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and Insurance Company was thus, not liable to pay any compensation to his mother/claimant.

5. Based on rival pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: -

"1. Whether on 24.06.2017, Prabhmrhar Singh alias Gurmehar Singh died in a motor vehicle accident caused due to use of Alto car bearing registration No.PB-13AU-1055, as detailed in the claim petition? OP A

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? OP A

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and other documents at the time of accident? OPR-2

5. Relief"

6. The learned Tribunal decided issues No.1, 2 & 3 in favor of the claimant-appellant. Qua issue no.4 i.e. the objection on alleged want of a valid driving license, the Tribunal observed that Insurance Company did not adduce any cogent evidence to discharge its onus. Thus, there was no substance in the said objection on the driving licence (Exhibit C7) produced by the claimant. In the absence of any adverse evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company, issue No.4 was decided against it.

7. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal observed as below: -

"So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, Prabhmrhar Singh alias Gurmehar Singh was child of about 09 years of age. His report card indicates that he was studying in 1st standard. In the Aadhaar card Exhibit C4, his date of birth is mentioned as 28.01.2009. Therefore, at the time of accident, he was more than 08 years of age. The child was to grow up and in future he would have been great support to his mother. She has lost her minor son and suffered mental trauma. Considering the age of the child as well as the provisions