Notional income for homemakers should be assessed based on minimum wages of skilled workers, and recovery rights for insurers cannot be granted based on mere presumption of 'hire' without cogent evidence.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose off the above-captioned two appeals. The appeal being FAO-7364-2010 has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.08.2010 on account of death of Maya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) while the appeal being FAO-3370-2011 has been filed by the owner of the Tempo bearing registration No.HR-19E-0515 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) aggrieved by the recovery rights, which have been given to the Insurance Company. The parties are being referred to as the claimants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company for the sake of clarity.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 12.01.2009 at about 12.00 noon, Ajit Singh alongwith his wife Maya Devi (deceased) was waiting for transport at bus stand of village Pentawas Kalan to go to Bhiwani. In the meantime, the offending vehicle, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Sanjay in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the side of Dadri and by coming on the wrong side of the road, struck against the deceased. As a result of accident, the deceased suffered injuries on her legs and other parts of the body. The driver of the offending vehicle, after leaving the offending vehicle, fled from the spot. The deceased was taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani where she succumbed to her injuries on the next day i.e. 13.01.2009. FIR No.26 dated 12.01.2009 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Sadar Charkhi Dadri.

3. The Tribunal relying on the statement of PW-1 Ajit Singh i.e. husband of the deceased, held that a number of passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle which was not a passenger vehicle. Since the offending vehicle was being used for transporting passengers on hire, as such the same was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus the Insurance Company was granted the recovery rights.

4. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle would contend that merely on the statement of PW-1 that there were some passengers travelling in the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has returned the finding that the passengers were being carried for hire. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has further contended that issue No.7, which was framed by the Tribunal, was specifically as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the onus was cast upon the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company failed to lead even an iota of evidence in this regard that the passengers, if at all, were travelling in the offending vehicle were travelling on payment. It is fu