Point of Law : A child, who has advanced into matured adulthood, is married or otherwise in the mainstream of life, would not be entitled to compensation under that head.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This is an Appeal by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Ballia in M.A.C.P. No.21 of 2015.

2. The appellants, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimants', are the widow and the three sons of the late Hira Lal, who died in a motor accident on 24.01.2015. The Tribunal has thought that looking to the age of Hira Lal and his station in life, that serve as the index of his income, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1 lakh alone. The claimants feel that the compensation awarded is atrociously low and have, therefore, appealed the Tribunal's award through the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[for short, 'the Act'].

3. The facts giving rise to the Appeal, in some detail, are these:

On 24.01.2015, Hira Lal had left home for some kind of a pathological test along with a relative. He was buying at the greengrocer’s, who had put up shop by the roadside at Nagra Road, Ballia. A truck, bearing registration No. UP-61J-7671, driven rashly and negligently by Yogendra Kushwaha, respondent no.3, was proceeding from Belthra towards Rasra. The greengrocer's shop was located on the western pavement of the road, where the deceased and his relative were buying vegetables. The rashly driven truck hit the deceased. In consequence of the injuries sustained, Hira Lal died on the spot. Hira Lal is survived by the claimants, where Jiuti Devi is his widow, whereas Laxmikant Chauhan, Jagdish Chauhan and Ramesh are his sons. The sons are all adults. The deceased was self-employed as a casual labourer, and according to the claimants, he earned a sum of Rs.250/-per day, which would work out to a figure of Rs.7500/-per month. The claimants say that they have lost their dependency to the extent of the income that the deceased contributed to the household. The claimants, therefore, petitioned the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.15 lakhs.

4. Manoj Kumar, respondent no.1, is the owner of the offending vehicle, that was driven by Yogendra Kushwaha. Manoj Kumar Rai is respondent no.1 to this Appeal. The Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, Marie Gold Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow are the insurers of the offending vehicle and they have been impleaded to this appeal, like the claim petition, through the Manager of the Insurance Company as respondent no.2. The Manager, Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, Marie Gold Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow, respondent no.2 to this Appeal, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the insurers'. Manoj Kumar Rai, respondent no.1, shall hereinafter be referred to as the owner, whereas Yogendra Kushwaha shall be called 'the driver'.

5. The owner and the insurers filed their separate written statements, denying the factum of involvement of the offending truck in the accident.

6. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed the following issues:

“1- Whether on 24-01-2015 at about 01.00, P.M. in Nagra market, P.S. Nagra, District Ballia, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. UP-61 J-7671, in which, Hira Lal Chauhan sustained injuries and died? If so, its effect?

2-Whether the driver of the offending vehicle No. UP-61 J-7671 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect?

3-Whether the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-61 J-7671 was not validly and effectively insured with opposite party No. 2, Chola Mandalam M/S General Insurance Co. Ltd.? If so, its effect?

4-Whether the aforesaid vehicle was not being plied under the terms and conditions of insurance policy? If so, its effect?

5. To what amount of compensation, are the petitioners entitled? And from whom?”

7. Issue Nos.1 to 4 have been answered in favour of the clai