The court emphasized that in compensation claims, oral testimony can substantiate income claims in the absence of documentary evidence, ensuring just compensation principles are adhered to.

JUDGMENT

The appellants detailed and described hereinabove have filed the present appeal undter Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) against the award, dated 29^th April, 2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are ghereinafter referred to as referred by the learned MACT.

3. Claimants No. 1 to 3 are the sons and claimant No. 4 is the widow of Sh. Bahadur Singh, who had died due to the injuries sustained in the road side accident on 7^th April, 2014, involving bus No. HP-71-2243.

4. The claim petition was filed against the respondents being the driver, owner and insurer of the ill fated bus.

5. As per the stand of the claimants, deceased Bahadur Singh, alongwith his son Gulab Singh, boarded the bus bearing registration No. HP-71-2243 from Millah to Timbi on 7^th April, 2014. The bus in question, at the relevant time, was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and when the said bus reached near Chamnol (Basog), Tehsil Shillai, the driver could not control the bus, resultantly, the bus had fallen into a deep gorge. In the said accident, Bahadur Singh sustained injuries. He was firstly takent to Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib from where, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit from 8^th April, 2014 to 12^th April, 2014. Unfortunately, on 12^th April, 2014, Bahadur Singh had expired.

6. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed ahs a carpenter by one Shri Surat Singh, s/o Sh. Chanan Singh gfrom where he was earning ₹ 15,000/- per month and he was also iearning ₹ 10,000/- from agricultural pursuits. Thus, his income has been stated to be ₹ 25,000/- at the time of his death.

7. On the basis of the above facts, the claimants have sought the compensation of ₹ 15 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the whole amount from the respondents.

8. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents.

9. Respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted the factum of accident but denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver-respondent No. 2, by putting forward the plea of mechanical fault in the vehicle in question, at the time of accident.

10. The insurer has taken the preliminary objections regarding the facts that the dtriver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence; the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The petition is also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

11. On all these submissions, the respondents have prayed fhor the dismissal of the claim petition.

12. The learned MACT framed the issues in this case on 6^th iJune, 2015. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce the evidence.

13. After the closure of the evidence, the learned MACT has passed the impugned award by awarding the compensation to the tune of ₹ 1,26,000/- as loss of dependency, which has been confined only to claimant No. 4; ₹ 10,000/- as funeral expenses, ₹ 30,000/- as loss of love and affection and ₹ 10,000/- to respondent No. 4 for loss of consortium. Apart from this, a sum of ₹ 6,650/- has also been awarded to the claimants on account of the amount spent by them on the treatment of deceased Bahadur Singh at PGI, Chandigarh. Thus, a total sum of ₹ 1,82,650/- has been awarded to the claimants by the learned MACT.

14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the claimants have approached this Court under Section 17