- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the award dated 05- 12-2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tri bunal/ IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in MAC. Case No. 39 of 1998 whereby the claim of the claim ants was allowed for an amount of com pensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/-and the appellant/ owner of the tanker-Smt. Mahendra Kaur was directed to pay the same.
(2.) THE claimants, children of de ceased-Krishna Pal had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 01-10-1997 at 7:00 p. m. , while the deceased- Krishna Pal was coming back from Circle Office alongwith Head Constable, Satyapal Singh by Hero Honda Motor Cycle to the Police Station Nangal, District Saharanpur, a offending tanker No. UP 80-D-9018 being driven rashly and neg ligently by its driver hit the Motor Cycle of the deceased. THEreafter, the driver of the offending tanker fled away from the place of occurrence. THE Head Consta ble, Satyapal Singh took the injured to the Government Hospital, Saharanpur where the doctors referred him for Chandigarh. But Krishna Pal died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. It is further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was getting a salary of 4. 122/- p. m. Besides this, he was also getting Rs. 3,000/-p. m. from the agricultural land. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their sepa rate written statements. The opposite party no. 1- Bhole, driver of the offending Tanker pleaded that due to non-join der of the owner, driver and insurer of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the claim petition is not maintainable. It is also pleaded that he was not driving the ve hicle at the time of the accident. The Opposite party No. 2- Smt. Mahendra Kaur, owner of the offending Tanker pleaded that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cyclist. It was also pleaded that a Tata Sumo had tried to overtake the Tanker and the Motor Cycle was" coming rashly from the opposite side and they collided with each other. The driver of the Tata Sumo alongwith his vehicle fled away from the spot. When the Motor Cyclist tried to es cape from the right side of the Tanker, they fell down and sustained the injuries. The driver of the offending Tanker was not rash and negligent at the time of the accident. The insurer in its written state ment pleaded that due to non-joinder of the owner and the insurance company of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle, the claim petition is not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending tanker was not having a valid driving license at the time of the acci dent and the offending Tanker was plied against the terms and conditions of the policy. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the of fending vehicle. The Tribunal further as sessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,225/- p. m. or Rs. 51. 060/- per annum. The Tribunal has further assessed the income of the deceased out of farming at Rs. 3,000/- per annum. As such, the Tribunal assessed the total income of the deceased at Rs. 54,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of the said amount as personal expenses of the deceased; the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 36,000/ -. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of15', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 5,40,000/ -. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus a to tal of Rs. 5,50,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Kishan Pal in the motor acci dent. The Tribunal further directed the owner of the offending vehicle- Sfnt. Mahendra Kaur / appellant to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the award, the owner of the Tanker- Mahendra Kaur/ appellant has filed this appeal. Heard Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Amit Bisht, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Mr. V. K. Kohli, Sen ior Counsel with Mr. I. P Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.;