In computing just compensation for a motor vehicle accident, courts must calculate income with future prospects, apply a multiplier based on the deceased's age, and award conventional damages according to standardized rates established by the Supreme Court.

The appellants, being dis-satisfied with the award dated 2.1.2017, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C.P. No. 6 of 2015, titled as, ‘Tarlok¹Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Chand versus Narinder Kumar & ors.’, have preferred the present appeal.

2. By way of award dated 2.1.2017, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed bHy the appellants by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,58,400/-, as compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. The ultimate liability has been fastened upon respondent No. 3, insurer of truck No. PB-03R-9439.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, befhore this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1 According to the claimants, deceased Ajay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 20 years of age and was earning Rs. 9000/- per month, as he was running a street vending cart at Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Punjab. H

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by the claimants that on 24.10.2014, their son deceased Ajay Kumar, alongwith one Manpreet Singh, was returning back on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-12T-1991, after re-fueling the same at Laddowal Petrol Pump. When, he was moving towards his street vending cart, then, at about 10:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of theh deceased. Consequently, Ajay Kumar and Manpreet Singh gsustained injuries. Ajay Kumar was taken to L.M. Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared to be brought dead. His post-mortem examination was conducted and information was given to Police of Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana and FIR No. 181 of 2014, dated 25.10.2014, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, with Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Pb. The accident in question has solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1.

4.3 The claimants have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future and sought compensation, as claimed in the petition.

5. When put to notice, the claim pHetition has been contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply, in which, they have taken preliminary objections by pleading that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the driver, owner and the insurer of Motorcycle No. HP- 12T-1991 have not been impleaded as parties in the petition, and the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself.

7. hOn merits, the contents of the claim petition have gmainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, factum of accident has not been disputed, but the same has been attributed to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

8. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections, qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated to be driven, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

9. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowleHdge. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition.

11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 5.2.2016:-

1. Whether deceased Ajay Kumar died due to accident dated 2