The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-assessment of compensation based on income tax returns and future prospects of the deceased, influenced by the legal principles established in the Pranay Sethi case and the concept of consortium.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. These are six appeals filed to challenge the Award dated 17.12.2012. Vide this Award, four claim petitions, which were consolidated, vide order dated 27.10.2009, were disposed of. Claim petitions No.116, 117 and 118 relate to deaths of Rajneesh Narang, Sonia Narang and Tanisha Narang respectively, whereas, claim petition No.119, relate to injuries sustained by Kanishka Narang, in a motor vehicular accident.

FAOs No.2350, 2351 and 2352 of 2013 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, vis-a-vis, deaths of aforesaid three persons and also FAO No.4529 of 2013 has been filed for seeking enhancement of compensation, vis-a-vis, injuries sustained by Kanishka Narang, in a motor vehicular accident.

3. However, FAOs No.4282 and 4283 of 2013 have been filed by the Insurance Company, thereby, asserting that compensation qua deaths of Rajneesh Narang and Sonia Narang, have been wrongly worked upon on higher side.

4. For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as claimants and respondents, as making appearance before the learned Tribunal.

5. As per the version of the claimants, on 01.12.2008, Rajneesh Narang along with his wife Sonia Narang and daughters, namely Kanishka and Tanisha, was coming back from Gurdaspur to Chandigarh via Hoshiarpur in his TATA Indica Car bearing No.CH-03P-0584, after attending marriage. When they reached at Tanda road at village Assalpur, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiapur, at about 1.15 p.m., a truck bearing registration No.PIA-9092, being driven by respondent No.1-Harbhajan Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the front side and hit their Indica Car. As a result of this accident, Kanishka sustained serious injuries,whereas, Rajneesh Narang, Sonia Narang and Tanisha, had died in the accident. FIR No.268 dated 01.12.2008 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, was registered against respondent No.1-Harbhajan Singh.

6. Further, in the respective claim petitions, it is also asserted that Rajneesh Narang (since deceased) was 38 years old and he was running a business under the name and style of Axcess Overseas Consultant and Mastek Computer Business, thereby earning Rs.5 lakh per annum.

7. Likewise, Sonia Narang was stated to be 31 years old, on the date of accident and she was also running a business under the name and style of Axcess Overseas Consultant and Mastek Computer Business along with her husband, thereby earning Rs.3 lakh per annum. Rs.1 lakh was spent on her treatment.

8. Further, it is asserted that Tanisha was 4 years old, at the time of accident and was studying in Sacred Heart Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent on her treatment.

9. Kanishka Narang was 9 years old, at the time of accident and she was also studying in Sacred Heart Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh. She sustained multiple grievous injuries and was treated in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, Chaitanya Hospital, Chandigarh, Virdi Eye Hospital, Chandigarh and Fortis Hospital, Mohali. A sum of Rs.2.5 lakh was incurred on her treatment.

10. In view of these assertions, compensation sought by the claimants is to the extent of Rs.60 lakh, Rs.50 lakh, Rs.30 lakh and Rs.30 lakh, respectively, in all the claim petitions.

11. In reply, respondent No.1, who is owner and driver of the truck bearing No.PIA-9092, denied the accident in toto. Respondents No.2 and 3- National Insurance Company pleaded in the reply that respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck, at the relevant time and the truck was being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Though, the accident, as such, has been denied but however, it was pleaded that driver of the offending truck, was not negligent. Even, the amount of compensation claimed, was also asserted to be excessive.

From