A transport vehicle must maintain a valid permit in accordance with Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to be indemnified by an insurer. Furthermore, compensation for fatal accidents must account for future prospects at 40% for a 39-year-old and correctly apply multiplier based on age.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants claimants as well as by the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 2 before the learned Tribunal), being aggrieved by the award dated 01.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

2. The appellants-claimants have sought enhancement of compensation, whereas respondent no. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle, has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in deciding the said issue in favour of the appellants-claimants. The owner has also assailed the grant of recovery rights to the Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants have sought compensation of ₹15,00,000/- on account of the death of Ram Niwas, aged 35 years, who died in motor vehicular accident which occurred on 05.12.2008. It was alleged that on the said date, Ram Niwas was proceeding from Gohana to his village Mundlana on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05L-2162. At about 6:00 p.m., he met Mukesh and Azad, who took a ride and became pillion riders on the said motorcycle. The vehicle was being driven by Ram Niwas at normal speed while observing all traffic rules and regulations. At about 6:30 p.m., when they reached near the Gas Agency situated on Panipat Road, Gohana, a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-1047 was parked/standing in the middle of the road with its back door open. There was no light, indicator, or signal to warn other vehicles about its parking. Due to the darkness, the motorcycle collided with the back door of the truck, resulting serious injuries to its riders and leading to the death of Ram Niwas. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 06.12.2008. FIR No. 431 dated 05.12.2008 was registered on the statement of Mukesh, one of the pillion riders.

4. It was the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was earning ₹15,000/- per month as a mason, and they accordingly claimed compensation of ₹15,00,000/- along with interest.

5. Following issues are framed by learned Tribunal:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 while driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-69-1047? OPP

2. If issue no. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the respondent no. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR 3

4. Relief.”

6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the respective pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellants-claimants, whereas Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal had held that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. respondent no. 1, was not possessing a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the liability to pay compensation was fixed upon the owner and driver of the vehicle, with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount to the appellants-claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹4,85,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from date of filing of petition till realisation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner (respondent No.2) as well as learned counsel for the