JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants/petitioners/claimants (hereinafter referred as claimants) in MACT Case No. 46 of 2000 dated 12.01.2002 for modification of award/judgement dated 12.01.2002 passed by Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Tribunal) by way of seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, on account of death of Mukesh Verma.

The petitioners-claimants in the present case are widow (Appellant No. 1), daughter (Appellant No. 2), son (Appellant No. 3), father (Appellant No. 4) and mother (Appellant No. 5)of the deceased Mukesh Kumar.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the fatal accident took place on 07.02.2000 when the deceased Mukesh Verma was coming from Yamunanagar Bus Stand to Jagadhri. Mukesh Verma was driving a scooter bearing No. PB/10AB/3522, while his brother-in-law namely Ram Gopal s/oMool Chand was following him on his own scooter at a distance of about 15/20 feet. When Mukesh Verma reached near Zimidara Petrol Pump, Jagadhri, one Maruti Car bearing No. HR02D/7575 driven by Subhash Rana (respondent No.1) struck with the scooter of Mukesh Verma, who fell down and became unconscious. Ram Gopal, who was following Mukesh Verma immediately parked his scooter and took Mukesh Verma to Gaba Hospital, Jagadhri, with the help of Dinesh Gupta, resident of Jagadhri and some other persons. Despite best efforts, the condition of Mukesh Verma became worse and on midnight of 08.02.2000, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 09.02.2000. Regarding the said accident, FIR No. 36 dated 08.02.2000 under Section 279 /304-A IPC was registered at Police station, City Jagadhri.

3. Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140/141 of The MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for seeking compensation before the Ld. Tribunal pleading that Subhash Rana/Respondent No. 1 was coming from the wrong side and was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner that led to the fatal accident.

4. After completion of the pleadings, Ld. Tribunal framed the following issues:

I. Whether the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.02.2000, is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of car no. HR 02D-7575 by respondent No. 1? OPP

II. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Mukesh Verma, if so, in what amount and from whom? OPP

III. Whether the Respondent No. 3, is entitled to repudiate the contract of insurance on the grounds alleged? OPR.

IV. Relief

5. For proving the issue No.1, Claimants examined Dinesh Kumar as PW-3, who was the eye witness of the accident and he categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. HR 02D-7575 and he even followed the said car up to D.C Chowk, but the driver managed to escape and later was identified as Subhash Rana (Respondent No.1). Further, the statement of PW-3 remained unimpeached and unrebutted as no oral or documentary evidence was placed on file by the respondents. In view of the deposition of the witnesses and evidence on record, Ld. Tribunal decided the Issue No. 1 in favour of Claimants.

6. It was claimed by Claimants that the deceased Mukesh Verma used to earn Rs. 15,000 per month (Rs.9000 per month by working as Design office Incharge in Pragati Silico Limited Company and Rs. 6,000 per month by doing part time work). However, after examining the witnesses and perusing the evidence on record, Ld. Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month. Age of the deceased was consi