The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident cases based on the assessment of loss of dependency, future prospects, and other related factors.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - All these above three appeals arise from a common Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2008, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.151 of 2005, Smt. Sonal Verma and another Vs. Sri Surender Mohan Chopra and others, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital (for short, "claim petition").

2. In this judgment, reference to appellants and respondents shall be to the Appeal From Order No.472 of 2008.

3. The appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of late Sameer Verma in a motor accident, which took place on 09.07.2005 at 02:30 p.m. On the fateful day, deceased Sameer Verma was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.UA04B 5134 ("the motorcycle") and proceeding from Bareilly to Haldwani. As soon as he reached near check post Bahedi, Kiccha bend, district Bareilly, a Scorpio car bearing registration No.UA06B 3309, ("the offending vehicle") came from behind, on the wrong side, in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the deceased and the pillion rider, who is PW2, Sandeep Verma, sustained injuries, who were taken to the hospital, where Sameer Verma succumbed to the injuries.

4. In the claim petition, the respondent No.1, (the owner of the offending vehicle) filed his objections. According to him, on the date of incident they had parked their vehicle on the side of a road. Suddenly, they heard that two persons riding on a motorcycle had slipped. They visited the spot and found a person in the injured condition and another standing near to him. At the request of the people, who gathered at the spot, the respondent No.1 took them to the hospital. Apart from it, it has also been stated by the respondent No.1, that all the documents relating to the offending vehicle were valid and the driver had a valid and effective driving license.

5. The respondent No.2, the insurance company of the offending vehicle initially admitted that the motorcycle collided with the offending vehicle, but subsequent to the filing of objections by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2, Insurance company also amended their objections to reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle.

6. The respondent No.3, Smt. Vimla Verma, who is mother of the deceased, has also supported the claim in her objections.

7. During the course of the arguments, on behalf of the appellant a statement is given that the respondent No.3 died during the pendency of these appeals. An application for substitution was filed by the appellant, which was allowed on 18.06.2019, but yet memo of parties have not been amended. Let it be done during the course of the day itself. Similarly, in Appeal from Order No. 460 of 2008, the factum of death of respondent No.4, Smt. Vimla Devi has not been recorded. Let it may also be done by the appellant in AO No.460 of 2008 today itself.

8. In the claim petition, parties adduced the evidence. On behalf of the appellants, PW1 the appellant Smt. Sonal Verma and PW2 Sandeep Verma, the pillion rider of the motorcycle were examined. The respondent No.1, was examined as DW1. Parties submitted documents also and after hearing the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the appellants and the mother of the deceased were awarded total Rs. 7,30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. By the impugned judgment and order, having considered the conduct of respondent No.1, the Tribunal also directed that one year delay was caused due to the respondent No.1, therefore, he was directed to pay interest for one year on the awarded amount.

9. Appellants filed appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation, claiming it to be inadequate.

10. Respondent No.1, filed appeal on the ground that he has been wrongly fastened with the liability to pay interest for one year on the awarded amount.

11. Respondent No.2, Insurance company of the offending vehicle has challenged the award on various ground