- (1.) This first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants/ appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award, dated 29.11.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Barabanki in MAC No. 250 of 2013 (Smt. Shabnam & others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others), whereby the award of Rs. 4,82,200/- along with 6% interest has been passed against New India Assurance Company Ltd. Since the claimants / appellants are not satisfied with the aforesaid award, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award.
(2.) The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 06.06.2013 at about 12.00 hours in noon in front of Sitarampur Bare, within the jurisdiction of Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki, when the deceased Md. Hasib, who is husband of Appellant No. 1, son of Appellant No. 2 and father of Appellant No. 3 was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. 41 U / 7772 was hit by a truck bearing registration No. UP 78 BT / 0897, due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries and he died instantly at the place of accident. In respect of the said accident, a case being Case Crime No. 117/2013 was registered in Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki under Section 279, 304-A, 427, IPC. It is stated that the deceased was running a hair cutting salon and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 26 years, hence a claim of Rs. 38,50,700/- was filed. It was found that the said truck involved in the accident was insured with Opposite Party No. 1 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) and owned by Opposite Party No. 2 (Suresh Chandra Bhatia) and driven by Opposite Party No. 3 (Ram Karan Singh). The insurance company and the owner of the said truck filed their written statements before the Tribunal, however, in spite of sufficient service, the driver of the said truck Opposite Party No. 3 had neither appeared in the court, nor filed any written statement, as such, the case proceeded ex parte against him. The insurance company had denied the claim and pleaded in the written statement that at the time of accident, relevant papers of the truck involved in the said accident were not valid and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It was also denied that the deceased was having monthly income of Rs. 25,000/-. However, the owner of the truck in his written statement has disclosed that the said truck involved in the accident was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch-Kanpur under the valid policy, which was effective from 26-12-2012 to 25-12-2013, which covers the date of accident. It was further pleaded that other relevant documents of the truck like fitness and permit were also effective on the date of accident.
(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The driver of the said truck during course of driving lost his control over the said truck and due to which the said truck collided with the motorcycle. While deciding Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that on the date of accident the said truck was validly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. and while deciding Issue No. 4, it was held that the said truck was driven by the driver of the truck with a valid and effective driving licence which was valid from 19.07.2011 to 18.07.2014. While deciding Issue No. 5, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that other relevant papers of the truck like registration, fitness and permit were also valid at the time of accident. However, while deciding Issue No. 6, which was relating to the compensation for which the claimants-appellants were entitled, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 26 years, so far as monthly income of the deceased was concerned, the Tribunal had not accepted the plea of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- - Rs. 30,000/- per months because the claimants - appellants could not established that the deceased was running a hair cutting salon in Azad Market at Indira Nagar, the claimants-appellants could not produce any shop number or any registration number regarding the shop. The Tribunal further held that claimants-appellants have also failed to produce any income certificate of the deceased, as such, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of notional income, the income of the deceased should be considered @ Rs. 3000/- per month. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of the said income for personal expenses of the deceased, hence, the notional income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed as Rs. 4,32,000/- . The Tribunal, however, added 10% to the said compensation for loss of estate i.e. Rs. 43,200/-, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium, so the total compensation assessed by the Tribunal to which the appellants were found entitled is Rs.4,82,200/-. However, the Tribunal held that since the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No. 1 and all the documents pertaining to the truck were valid and the truck was driven by the driver having a valid licence, as such, the liability to pay the said compensation was fasten upon Opposite Party No. 1 along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum. The claimants-appellants aggrieved by the said compensation have come up before this Court in appeal.;