Compensation awarded for death in a motor vehicle accident is justified based on established negligence, despite insufficient documentary proof of earnings, applying minimum wage standards.

Judgment

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellants – Bijanti and her minor children namely Deepak, Divya Kumari, Nisha Kumari and Manisu (through their mother i.e. appellant No. 1 being natural guardian) have filed the instant appeal bearing FAO No. 78 of 2014 for modification and enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned Award dated 18.04.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, whereas, the appellant – The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed appeal bearing FAO No. 1253 of 2014 for setting aside the impugned Award as referred above. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same Award dated 18.04.2013, therefore, the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts of the case are that Bijanti and minors namely Deepak, Divya Kumari, Nisha Kumari and Manisu (through their Natural Guardian, mother i.e. petitioner No. 1 Bijanti) and Shanti Devi (who expired during the pendency of claim petition) had filed claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum on account of death of Rajesh Prasad in a Motor Vehicular accident. It is submitted that at the time of accident, deceased Rajesh Prasad was 34 years old and was doing the job of “Helper” in M/s Super Industries, M.I.E., Bahadurgarh and earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. On the fateful day of 08.12.2006, at about 10:30 a.m. Rajesh Prasad alongwith his brother-in-law Dinesh Kumar were going from Modern Industrial Area, Post Office Bahadurgarh to their residence on their respective cycles. When they reached near Mama Chowk, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, all of a sudden one Tractor bearing Registration No. HR-13-8914 with water-tanker which was being driven by respondent No. 2 Satya Narain came from the side of Bhadurgarh in a rash, negligent and reckless manner at a very high speed and hit the bicycle of Rajesh Prasad with great force. Due to the impact, Rajesh Prasad fell down and died on the spot. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 293 dated 08.12.2006 under Section 279 , 304-A of I.P.C. was registered against respondent No. 2 at Police Station City, Bahadurgarh. Hence, the claim petition.

3. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. In the joint written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, not approaching the Court with clean hands were taken. It is admitted that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of Eicher Tractor referred above. However, it is submitted that the alleged accident was caused due to the negligence and recklessness of deceased cyclist Rajesh Prasad. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, the answering respondents are not liable to pay any compensation, as alleged. On merits, all the facts were denied. It was claimed that the amount mentioned in the claim petition is highly exaggerated. Neither the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 was involved nor the respondent No. 2 was responsible in any manner for causing alleged accident. Hence, it was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed with costs.

4. The Insurance Company – respondent No. 3 also filed separate written reply taking the stand that claim petition was not maintainable in the present form. It was alleged that the offending Tractor was involved in the accident in-collusion with local police. The occurrence of alleged accident was denied by the answering respondent. It was submitted that according to the petition, driver