The court determined proper compensation standards, emphasizing breach of insurance policy requires proof and proper assessment of damages for claimants.

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 3.5.2013, passed by the court of Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 30 of 2011, whereby non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., driver and owner have been directed to pay a total compensation of Rs. 4,34,000 to the claimants - appellants with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 13.6.2010, deceased Taaj Mohammad along with his friend Mohd. Mutalib was travelling in a Tempo bearing registration No. CG 04 - T 0577 from Durg to Dongargarh. When they reached near village Banbhedi, at that time, a truck bearing registration No. AP 10 - V 4949 driven by non - applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed Tempo whereby the deceased sustained severe injuries on his head and during the course of treatment he died. The claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased and three minor children as also the mother and father of deceased Taaj Mohammad claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 35,00,000 on various heads.

3. Non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending truck, contended that the driver of Tempo bearing registration No. CG 04 - T 0577 was in drunken condition and thereby he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while coining on wrong side, dashed the truck No. AP 10 - V 4949. It was further contended that the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 and the award of compensation is liable to be paid by the insurance company.

4. The insurance company refuted the averments of the claim and contended that in such accident, two vehicles were involved and, therefore, the vehicle wherein the deceased was travelling is liable for contributory negligence and since there is breach of terms of insurance policy, the insurance company cannot be directed to pay the compensation.

5. The Claims Tribunal after evaluating the facts and evidence passed an award of Rs. 4,34,000 and exonerated the insurance company.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that without there being any pleading or evidence, the insurance company has been exonerated on the ground that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate. It is further contended that such ground was neither part of pleading nor it was established during the course of evidence, therefore, the insurance company should have been fastened with the liability. He further submits that the claimants have adduced evidence that the deceased was working as driver and was getting a salary of Rs. 9,000 per month but the Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month which is too meagre and being driver, salary of Rs. 9,000 which was projected was also not exorbitant. He further submits that future prospects have not been considered and on conventional heads also, meagre amounts have been awarded, therefore, suitable enhancement be made.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company vehemently submits that the insurance company has adduced evidence that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate, consequently the award passed is well merited which does not call for any interference. He further submits that so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, no documentary evidence is on record to substantiate the fact that the deceased was permanently employed as driver, therefore, the notional income which has been taken by the learned Tribunal is also correct a