JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

CM-2944-CII-2026

The instant application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC is for bringing on record LRs of appellants No.1-Mam Chand and No.2-Smt. Krishna.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and legal representatives of appellant No.1-Mam Chand (since deceased) and Krishna (since deceased) i.e. Mukesh Kumar and Smt. Sonia are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of above said appellants.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record, subject to all just ex-ceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO-5071-2005

1. The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Branch. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed a copy of award in the Court, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the record.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 27.07.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT No.148 of 2003 decided by the MACT, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of their son namely Surinder @ Sonu in a motor vehicular accident.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:-

“i). Whether the accident in question resulting in death of Surinder alias Sonu was caused because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-51-J-1608 by its driver respondent No.1? OPP

ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, if so how much and from whom?OPP.

iii). Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. If so, to what effect? OPR.

iv). Relief.

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Surinder @ Sonu along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-51-J-1608, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that deceased was 17 years of age but the Tribunal has assessed his income as per Second Schedule of notional basis amounting to Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.