Compensation for vehicular accidents must be just and reasonable, focusing on equitable loss recovery, while applying correct legal principles without succumbing to strict technicalities.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the award, dated 3rd October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, Shimla, (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1.21 crore, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award).

2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No.80 of 2009 on the ground of adequacy of compensation, while the insurer has assailed the impugned award in FAO No.162 of 2009 on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

3. Facts:

Unfortunate claimants (appellants in FAO No.80 of 2009) have been brought to streets by the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Vinod Kumar, while driving truck bearing registration No.HR - 58-1895 rashly and negligently near Saharanpur by hitting the car bearing No.HP03A - 7997, being driven by deceased Ajay Kumar Sood. It was averred in the Claim Petition that on 10th October, 2003, the deceased alongwith other persons was going to Rishikesh and at about 2.45 a.m., when he reached at Saharanpur, the offending truck came from wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and struck with the car, as a result of which the deceased sustained head injury, was taken to the nearest hospital where he was declared as brought dead.

4. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a qualified Engineer, was A - Class contractor, had constructed many prestigious projects of national repute in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had earned a good repute in the world of construction, was earning Rs.5.00 lacs per month and was an income tax payee. Thus, the claimants, being widow and minor daughter and son and being solely dependant upon the deceased, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.12.00 crore as per the breakups given in the Claim Petition.

5. Original respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. owner and the driver filed joint reply to the Claim Petition. Original respondent No.3 / insurer also contested the claim petition by filing the reply.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be settled by the Tribunal:

"1. Whether Ajay Sood died in accident of Car bearing registration No.HP - 03A - 7997 which was hit by truck bearing registration No.58-1895 while driving vehicle rashly and negligently by respondent No.2, if so, its effect? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the truck was not having valid driving licence? OPR - 3

4. Whether the truck was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR - 3

5. Whether the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle, if so, its effect? OPR - 3

6. Whether the petition is bad for non - joinder of necessary parties, if so, its effect? OPR - 3

7. Relief."

7. After filing the reply, the owner and the driver did not appear before the Tribunal and they were proceeded against exparte.

8. The claimants and the insurer led their evidence. Claimants examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, claimant Rama Sood PW - 1, Shri Sanjay Sood PW - 2, Shri Shadi Lal PW - 3, Shri Sudershan Dass PW - 4, Shri Kuldeep Sharma PW - 5, Shri Khem Chand PW - 6, Shri Niraj Chand PW - 7, Shri Ram Lal PW - 8, Shri Asha Ram PW - 9, Dr.Karan Singh PW - 10, Shri Hari Ram Sharma PW - 11 and Shri D.N. Vaidya PW - 12. Claimants also proved on record documents Exts