Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company to challenge the award dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (in brevity, "the Tribunal"), whereby compensation of Rs.7,10,000 (round figure of actual compensation of Rs 7,09,750/-) has been awarded to the appellants/ claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum (or @ 10% per annum if compensation is not paid by the appellant- Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of award).

2. Respondents No. 1-4/claimants being dependents of deceased, Bakshish Ram, filed claim petition u/s 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") before the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of his death in the accident which took place on 12.11.2015.

3. Learned Tribunal held that death of the deceased occurred due to the accident and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No	Heads of Claim	Amount (in Rs)
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.5,19,700/-
2.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium	Rs.1,60,000/-
4	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 7,09,750 (rounded off to Rs 7,10,000/-)

4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 06.08.2019, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company. Facts as specified in the claim petition regarding accident and negligence are not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company made submission on multiple grounds while impugning the award passed by the ld. Tribunal. Firstly, he submitted that this claim petition was not maintainable as during cross examination, the wife of the deceased admitted that he was earning Rs 500/- daily and since his income was more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the claim petition under section 163-A of the Act could not have been entertained. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:

i. "Cholamandhlam MS General Insurance Company V. Prem Devi and Ors.", bearing case no FAO 3329 of 2016, decided on 08.07.2019;

ii. "Israr V. Jakhar @ Jakhar Ali and Anr.", bearing case no FAO 274 of 2019, decided on 16.01.2019;

5.1 Secondly, he contended that even if this court comes to the conclusion that the claim petition was maintainable, ld. Tribunal failed to assess the compensation in accordance with Second Schedule of the Act and granted excessive compensation. Delving further into this argument, learned Counsel submitted that while determining compensation in accordance with Second Schedule, future prospects are not to be awarded and reduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4. He further submitted that compensation assessed under conventional heads is Rs 1,90,000/-while it should have been Rs. 90,000 only. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following judgements:

i. "The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sukhveer Kaur and Ors.", bearing case no FAO 6121 of 2016, decided on 10.05.2019;

ii. "Aryan and Ors. V. Kanti Lal and Ors.", bearing case no FAO 5184 of 2014, decided on 20.11.2018.

5.2 Lastly, he submitted that penal interest rate of 10% has been awarded if appellants could not pay the compensation within 45 days, which is not permissible in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others" reported as 2004 (2) RCR Civil 99.

5.3 In addition to the above cited judgments, Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

i. "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Rupinder Kaur and Ors.", bearing case no FAO 6838 of 2010, decided on 04.02.2014;

ii. "National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and Ors.", bearing case no FAO 5949 of 2002, decided on 11.05.2006;

iii. "Salochana and Anr. V. Krishan Lal and Anr.", bearing case no FAO 6406 of 2013, decided on 11.04.2014;

iv. "Mohit Gar