The main legal point established is the importance of verifying the validity of a driving license and considering evidence of income and future prospects in determining compensation in road accident cases.

JUDGMENT

ALKA SARIN,J. - Heard in physical mode.

CM-745-CII-2018 in FAO-247-2018

2. This is an application under Ss. 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1047 days in filing the present appeal.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 1047 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

4. This common order shall dispose of the above-captioned two appeals. FAO No.2879 of 2015 (Phulpati & Anr. vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors.) has been preferred by the claimants while FAO No.247 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.) has been preferred by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle against the award dtd. 25/11/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

5. In the later part of the judgment, the parties will be referred to as claimants, driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company for the sake of convenience.

6. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on 14/7/2013 at about 07.30 p.m. Rajesh Kumar (deceased) was crossing the highway leading from Chandigarh to Ambala. When he reached near the divider, a car bearing registration no.HR-01-AE-3150 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver hit the deceased as a result of which he received serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to G.M.C.H., Sector 32, Chandigarh where the doctor declared him as brought dead.

7. The claimants preferred a claim petition stating therein that the deceased was working as a Web Designer with Anjali Arts, Plot No.156, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and was drawing a salary of 18,000/- per month and therefore, claimants prayed for compensation to the tune of 50,00,000/-.

8. All the respondents appeared before the Tribunal. However, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to file their written statements within a stipulated period and their defence was struck off vide order dtd. 6/1/2014. The Insurance Company in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the claim petition and alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. On merits, the Insurance Company denied the involvement of the offending vehicle and pleaded that excessive compensation had been claimed by the claimants.

9. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether respondent no.1 drove car bearing registration no.HR-01-AE-3150 in rash and negligent manner and struck against Rajesh Kumar deceased ?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation ? If so, at what rate, against whom ? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence ? OPR

5. Whether the car in question is being used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy ? OPR

6. Whether the claimants have got no locus standi to file the present claim petition ? OPR

7. Relief.

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal :

On issue no.4, it was held that the