By the Court.—Heard Mr. Manish Jauhari, learned Counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle and Mr. T.J.S. Makkar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-New India Assurance Company.

2. Appellant, who is said to be the owner of the offending vehicle, has approached this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award dated 2.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Room No. 4, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), in Claim Petition No. 340 of 2004 : Ram Chandra and others v. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari and others, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, has fastened liability to pay Rs. 1,17,000/- as compensation upon the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are as under :

On 8.5.2004, deceased Smt. Maya Madhuri was coming to home from Chaupatia by foot and at about 10.30 p.m., when she reached in front of Hanumanji Mandir situated at Subhash Marg near Birhana Chauraha, then, driver of the truck, bearing registration No. U.P.78 A.N. 7457, while driving it rashly and negligently, who was going from Naka to Pandeyganj, crushed Smt. Maya Madhuri, as a consequence thereof, Smt. Maya Madhuri died on the spot.

4. In order to get compensation, husband and son of the deceased approached the Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 340 of 2004. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, have framed five issues, which are as under :

“1. Whether on 8.5.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., driver of the truck, bearing registration No. U.P. 78 A.N. 7457, while driving it rashly and negligently, hit Maya Madhuri, in front of Hanumanji Mandir situated at Subhash Marg near Birhana Chauraha, Duganwa, by which Maya Madhuri died on the spot.

2. Whether accident occurred due to partial carelessness of Smt. Maya Madhuri as alleged in para-13 of the written statement of respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd.

3. Whether the driver of the truck, bearing registration No. U.P. 78 A.N. 7457, was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident, as stated in para-14 of the written statement of New India Assurance Company Ltd.

4. Whether the truck bearing No. U.P.78 A.N.7457, was not insured with respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. as stated in para-15 of the written statement of respondent No. 3.

5. How much amount the claimant is entitled for and from which of the respondents.”

5. The Tribunal has decided issue No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and has recorded a specific finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck in question. In respect of issue No. 3, the Tribunal found that at the time of accident, driver of the truck was having valid and effective driving license. In respect of issue No. 4, the Tribunal opined that the owner of the truck in question had produced a copy of the insurance policy (C-13/6), which revealed that the truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the said policy was valid w.e.f. 22.11.2004 to 21.11.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding that when the accident in question occurred on 8.5.2004, at that time, the Truck was not insured with the New India Assurance Company. Therefore, issue No. 4 has been decided against the owner of the truck (appellant herein). In respect of issue No. 5, the Tribunal found that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 50 years and as the claimants have failed to establish the income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per annum. After applying the multiplier of ‘’11', the Tribunal awarded (Rs.10,000x 11=1,10,000/- + Rs. 2000 towards funeral expenses + Rs. 5000 towards loss of love and affection=) Rs