JUDGMENT

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide which the claim petition titled as Prem Devi and another Vs. Devender and others, filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 10,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum was awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2021 Sandeep (since deceased) was coming to his house after taking household articles and at about 7.00 P.M., when he reached in front of Housing Board Colony on Kacha Path, a tractor bearing registration No.HR-82/9454 came at a very fast speed being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and hit Sandeep from the backside. Resultantly, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, where doctors declared him as dead. After reporting of the matter to the police, a criminal case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered vide FIR No.221 dated 18.03.2021 at Police Station, City Narnaul. The claimants claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respondents qua death of Sandeep.

3. The said claim petition was contested by respondent No.3/ the present appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 in the said case and they filed their respective written statements.

4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 by driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-82/9454? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policy stood violated? OPR

4. Relief.

5. To prove their case, claimant No.2 Naresh Kumar appeared as PW1 and claimants also examined Sanjay son of Bahadur Singh eyewitness as PW2. Thereafter, the claimants closed their evidence after tendering following documents :-

6. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, respondents No.1 and 2 did not examine any witness and closed their evidence after tendering following documents:-

7. Appellant-Insurance Company closed the evidence in the said petition after tendering following documents:-

8. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the accident in which Sandeep lost his life was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 (driver) in the said petition.

9. The learned Tribunal by further taking into account that deceased was 13 years of age at the time of his death and was student of 7th standard, assessed notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 50,000/- per annum. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- were awarded towards loss of