The Court affirmed that awards for compensation within a 4-5% variation from tribunal adjudications are generally not subject to interference.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants No. 1, 3 and 4 (respectively being the widow, daughter and son of the deceased Kulwant Singh), seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 9,89,200/- awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 18.09.2014 passed in MACT Case No. 30 dated 23.05.2012 filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it, concluded that the deceased Kulwant Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.02.2012 at about 1:30 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No. PB-08-BE-6994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent No.1; and owned by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 herein is the insurance company of the vehicle No. PB-05-G-9761, which was being driven by the deceased Kulwant Singh at the time of accident. Before the learned Tribunal, the claimants had stated that the name and address of the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured, will be disclosed by the owner/respondent No.2 after his service. However, respondent no.2 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants seeks enhancement of compensation only on the ground that no addition has been made by way of future prospects. It is submitted that the deceased was a Truck driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. On the date of accident, the deceased was 53 years of age. As such, learned Tribunal ought to have made an addition of 25% towards future prospects. However, the same has not been done. As such, impugned Award is not in accordance with law. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and impugned Award be modified and compensation awarded to the claimants be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that nothing is liable to be paid by respondent No. 3 as it was not the insurer of the offending vehicle; rather only the insurer of vehicle being driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. Vide the impugned Award liability has been correctly fixed upon respondents no.1 and 2/Driver and owner, respectively.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants.

7. It is relevant to note that as per the testimony of respondent No.1/RW1, the deceased was driving on the wrong side of the road. It has been deposed by RW1 that on seeing the deceased driving on the road, RW1 had blown the horn of offending vehicle, yet truck of the deceased hit into the offending vehicle which resulted in injuries not only to the deceased but also to respondent No.1. As such, deceased was taken to the hospital with multiple injuries on 04.02.2012 to which he had succumbed on 21.02.2012.

8. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a Truck driver and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, it was admitted by appellant No.1/widow/ CW1 in her cross-examination that she had no proof regarding income of the deceased. As such, learned Tribunal had assessed the income of