Liability of insurance companies and determination of compensation for loss of consortium and loss of estate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This shall dispose of three appeals; FAO No.6707 of 2015 filed by the insurance company-Tata AIG, insurer of offending vehicle No.RJ-02-UA-2993; FAO No.7528 of 2015 filed by the Insurance company-New India Assurance Company insurer of offending vehicle No.RJ-32-UA-4038 challenging the award of compensation; and FAO No.98 of 2016 filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal. All the aforesaid appeals are arising from the same award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (in short, the Tribunal), involving the same incident of accident.

2. For the purpose of the present appeal, the parties are referred to as they were described in the original claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

3. For reference, the facts are being taken as pleaded in FAO No.6707 of 2015.

4. The brief facts of this case are that Parveen Kumar, Arun, Anil Kumar and Gaurav were serving in the Air Force in Bangalore. They were on holidays. Therefore, they had come to their native place. They started to go to Nimot for attending the marriage of Inderjit, in Alto car bearing No.HR-27-D-7304, being driven by Anil Kumar at a slow and moderate speed and with due caution and care. Gaurav was sitting on front seat of the Alto car while Parveen Kumar and Arun were sitting on the back seat of the car. At about 9.10 p.m. when they reached Bareli Kalan ahead of Parkhotampur then one of the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-32-UA-4038; being driven by respondent No.3 in rash and negligent manner; came from the opposite direction and hit the Alto car from the side. Following the said vehicle another vehicle, i.e, Scorpio bearing registration No. RJ-02-UA-2993; being driven by respondent No.l in a rash and negligent manner; came from the front side and hit the Alto car. Due to this impact of accident caused by the vehicles, Anil Kumar and Gaurav sustained serious and grievous injuries and died on the spot. Parveen Kumar and Arun received injuries on their person. They were shifted to hospital. In that regard FIR No.36 dated 02.05.2014 was also got registered at Police Station Jatusana.

5. On account of death of Anil Kumar the claim petition was filed by the widow, mother and father of the deceased. In the said petition the claimants asserted that the deceased was of the age of 22 years and he was employed in the Indian Air Force and was drawing as salary of Rs. 33,375/-. Accordingly, a compensation to the tune of rupees one crore was claimed by the claimants. Respondent No.l filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi', cause of action and other routine objections. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company of Scorpio filed a separate written statement taking routine preliminary objections beside asserting that the respondent No.l was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, the age, occupation and income of the deceased, was also denied. Respondent No.3 did not appear despite service and ultimately he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.09.2014. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company of Bolero has filed its separate written statement taking routine preliminary objections. In their written statement also the age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed by the insurance company.

6. To prove their assertions the claimants examined the injured eyewitness Parveen Kumar as PW-1. Rajbir Singh himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined SGT, P.S. Yadav as PW-3. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.l tendered into evidence the documents Exhibits RW-1 to RW-3. No other document was led in evidence.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after assessing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 33,375/-. Beside that age of the deceased was taken at 22 years. Accordingly, the multiplier of 18 has been applied