Point of Law: Accident - Enhancement of quantum of compensation - Tribunal may release the money with certain stipulations and that guidelines have to be followed but not rigidly followed as precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and award dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 252 of 2011 filed by Smt. Rashmi Jain and another for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that deceased with others was travelling in Spark Car bearing registration No. HR 01 AA 3660. Kumari Malini Jain (deceased) along with Rohit, his wife Shivani and son Shubham was going to Nazibabad from Delhi on 2.10.2010 when on the way, at about 10 a.m., driver of car bearing registration No. U.P. 20 W 7481 driving his vehicle rashly and negligently dashed with their car from the front as a result of which all the persons received severe injuries. All were rushed to Puja Hospital Nazibabad where they were told to get them treated in a better equipped hospital. The patients were taken to Meerut Hospital. Malini Jain succumbed to injuries on the way to Meerut. In the accident, Rohit sustained fracture in right leg, Shivani sustained fracture in left leg and all the three received injuries on other parts of the body too. Deceased was an intelligent and hale and hearty girl, who was posted as Assistant Manager and used to earn Rs.30,000/-per mensem. She had obtained degree of M.B.A. from M.S.W. and X.L.R. I., Jamshedpur. The claimants filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.92,30,000/-as compensation from all the respondents.

4. The Tribunal heard the parties and, vide Judgment and award dated 30.7.2014, awarded a sum of Rs.9,78,500/-along with 7 per cent simple rate of interest from the date of presentation of claim petition till the date of last payment of awarded amount.

5. The appellants are parents of the deceased Malini Jain, who was 35 years of age when she was travelling in the car driven by her brother and met with an accident with the car owned by respondent No. 1. The fateful accident occurred on 2nd of October, 2010. Issues, which are not in dispute, are that the accident took place between two vehicles and negligence of both the drivers was decided by the Tribunal to be 50% each. It is an admitted position of fact that neither the deceased contributed to the accident which took place nor she was a tort feasor. It is not in dispute that the vehicle owners have not challenged the award and decree till date. The Insurance companies have also not challenged the decree and award but respondent No. 4, namely, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., which has been exonerated by the Tribunal, has contended that as appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehiclesAct 1988 is continuation of original proceedings, they have right to defend and contend that there was also breach of condition of insurance contract by owner and driver

6. The factual datas as further culled out and important for our purposes are that the deceased was a divorcee. She was in the age bracket of 31-35 years when the accident occurred as narrated above i.e., on 2nd of October, 2010. The driver of other vehicle died in the accident. The driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling suffered severe injuries, who was real brother of deceased. Other inmates of the vehicle were also injured. The parents at the time of accident in the year 2010 were aged 52 and 54 years respectively. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 92,30,000/-as the deceased was Assistant Manager and earning Rs. 30,000/-per month. She obtained her M.B.A. degree from M.S.W. and X.L.R. I., Jamshedpur.

7. The accident having occurred is not in dispute. On notice being served, the respondents appeared and filed their reply before the Tribunal. The claimants also filed documentary evidence. Respondent No. 2-M/s Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company, as usual, filed reply denying that the vehicle was insured with them. They contended that the income of