The burden of proving breach of insurance policy terms lies on the insurer; in the absence of such proof, the insurer remains liable. Additionally, the notional income of a housewife must reflect the invaluable, multifaceted nature of her household contributions, warranting fair assessment for compensation.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. Both the appeals, as noticed above, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned award dated 06.04.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby the claimants were awarded compensation to tune of Rs.4,58,500/- along with interest @6% per annum and appellants-driver and owner of the offending vehicle (FAO No. 5361-2012) were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants-appellants (in FAO No. 3466-2012).

2. The appeal, i.e. FAO-5361-2012, has been preferred by the appellants-driver and owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 06.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the claim petition filed by claimants/appellants in FAO No. 3466-2012 was allowed and appellants-driver and owner of the offending vehicle (FAO No. 5361-2012) were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants-appellants (in FAO No. 3466-2012) to the tune of Rs.4,58,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. The appeal, i.e. FAO-3466-2012, has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 06.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to them to the tune of Rs.4,58,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Smt. Sushila Devi, who died in the accident occurred on 19.07.2010.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. Brief facts of the case as per claim petition are that on 19.07.2010, the deceased Sushila Devi alongwith her husband Satya Parkash was going from village Naya Sarana to her parental home at Gahli. They started her journey for village Gahli in a jeep bearing registration No.HR-35A-2603 owned by a person of her village ie. the respondent no.1-Raj Kumar, who from the very beginning was driving the same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased Sushila Devi and the petitioner Satya Parkash told the respondent No.1 to drive the jeep at slow speed and in controlled manner but the respondent No.1 did not pay any heed to their request. At about 12.30 P.M., when the said jeep reached near Canal Rest House, Singhana Road, Narnaul, respondent No.1 while driving the abovesaid jeep at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner struck against a tempo which was coming from opposite side. As a result, the deceased suffered injuries on her right leg including some other injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 23.07.2010 when she was under treatment in SMS hospital, Jaipur. It is alleged that the accident in question took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No.HR-35A-2603 by the respondent No.1. FIR No.247 dated 27.07.2010 under sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1 in police station City Narnaul.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“i) Whether injuries to petitioner were caused in a vehicular accident which took place on 19.07.2010 at about 12.30 P.M. in the area of Singhana Road, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-35A-2603 being driven by respondent no.1? OPP.

ii) To what amount of compensati