IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compensation for loss of life must be just and adequate, emphasizing that benefits from compassionate appointments do not offset the loss of future earnings.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Jitendra Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 in F.A.F.O. No.18 of 2023 (here-in-after referred as learned counsel for the insurance company) and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents no.1 to 3 in F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 and learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.F.O. No.18 of 2023 (here-in-after referred as learned counsel for the claimants). None appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 in F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 and for respondent nos.1 and 2 in F.A.F.O. No. 18 of 2023 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck.

2. The F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 has been filed assailing the judgment and award dated 16.09.2022 passed in Claim Petition No.953 of 2014; Smt. Shallo Begum and Others Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (here-in-after referred as M.A.C.T.), South, Lucknow. The F.A.F.O. No.18 of 2023 has been filed for modification of the judgment and award dated 16.09.2022and enhancement of compensation. Hence both the appeals are being clubbed and decided together by this common judgment and order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant i.e. insurance company in F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 submitted that contributory negligence of the deceased has not been considered, whereas as per the technical inspection report of scooty, on which the deceased was going, was damaged from the front side, therefore, the plea of the claimant-respondent that the truck insured with the appellant insurance company had dashed from the back side was not tenable and there was contributory negligence of the deceased also. He further submitted that the deceased was of 58 years of age at the time of accident and since the daughter of the deceased was given appointment on compassionate ground in his place after his death, therefore, there was no future loss of income, hence the future prospects could not have been allowed. He further submitted that the provision of Section 134(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-in-referred as Act of 1988) have not been complied and no information to the appellant insurance company was given after the accident by the driver or in-charge of vehicle, therefore, the appellant insurance company can not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation in view of Section 168 of the Act of 1988.

4. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. He relied on Syed Basheer Ahmad & Others Vs. Mohammad Jameel & Another; (2009) 2 SCC 225, Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadev Shetty & Another; (2003) 7 SCC 197, State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others; 2003 (3) T.A.C. 569 (S.C.), State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas & Others; 1969 (1) SCC 509, Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami & Others; (1962) 1 SCR 929, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma & Others; 2016 (4) T.A.C. 149 (S.C.), Sebastiani Lakra & Others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. & another; (2019) 17 SCC 465, 31, Sanjay Ramdas Patil Vs. Sanjay & Others; (2021) 10 SCC 306, Khub Chand and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan; (1967) 1 SCR 120 and National Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi & Others; (2017) 16 SCC 680.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents no.1 to 3 in F.A.F.O. No.333 of 2023 submitted that the contentions of learned counsel for the insurance company are misconceived and not tenable. There was no contributory negligence of the deceased because the F.I.R. was lodged immediately after the accident alleging that the truck insured by the appellant insurance company had hit the scooty from the back side, therefore, the deceased fell down from the scooty and came under the truck. He further submitted that on hitting from back, the vehicle may fell