The court established that in motor accident claims, assessment of income for self-employed persons must account for personal managerial skills and potential future prospects, and that oral evidence of income should not be discarded solely for lack of documentary corroboration.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 07.11.2002 for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- has been awarded as compensation due to death of Sunder Singh in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck No.HR-01-A-3345) (for short ‘offending truck’), being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3 and insured with respondent No.4.

2. As per the version of the appellants, deceased, Sunder Singh, was an undertrial prisoner lodged in Central Jail, Ambala. On 07.12.2000, he was escorted by a police party to attend the court at Guhla. After the court proceedings, while being brought back to Ambala City, the party stepped down from a bus near a school. While they were in front of the school gate, a TATA truck bearing registration No. HR-01-A-3345, being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit Sunder Singh from behind. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries shortly thereafter at Civil Hospital, Ambala. On the statement of Man Mohan Singh, Constable, FIR No. 476 dated 7.12.2000 under Sections 279/337/304A/336 IPC was registered at Police Station Ambala City.

3. Respondents No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte. Respondent No.2 in his written statement has raised preliminary objections to the effect that the petition is vague and does not disclose cause of action and is also bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable in the present form. Objections were also raised that the claimants are estopped from filing the petition by their own act and conduct and that they are not entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. It was further averred that the driver of the truck was holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was conceded that FIR was lodged against respondent No.1, who is the driver of Truck No. HR-01A 3345. On merits, the said respondent has denied the accident, but has contended that a false case has been registered in collusion with the police against respondent No.1. It was further submitted that Surinder Mohan is the registered owner of the truck in question which was duly insured with the insurance company.

4. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company in its separate written statement raised identical preliminary objections and further contended that the driver of the truck in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck at the time of accident. Moreover, the truck in question was not insured with Respondent No.4. at the time of accident and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment of compensation.

5. Respondents No.5 and 5-A in their written statement have admitted the factum of accident. However, it is submitted that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. Deceased Sunder Singh was in judicial custody in a criminal case and was being taken to Central Jail, Ambala, on