Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE claimants have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (in short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 3.5.2008 on account of death of Gaurav Gupta.
(2.) ON 29.11.2006, Sachin accompanied by Bharat Bhushan, Gaurav Gupta and Sandeep were returning after attending a party at Drive -in 22 situated at Ambala -Chandigarh Highway in car No. HR - 01N -881 driven by Sachin. At about 11.30 PM near Toll Tax Barrier, Sachin applied brakes of the car suddenly but he could not control the car and hit the truck behind its back. As a result thereof, Sachin and Gaurav died at the spot, while Bharat Bhushan and Sandeep succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Accordingly, four claim petitions were filed. The present appeal has arisen out of MACT Case No. 183 of 2006, filed by the parents of Gaurav Gupta deceased. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 besides raising various preliminary objections pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company in its written statement raised various preliminary objections including the maintainability of the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Denying the involvement of the car in the accident and their liability to pay compensation, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: - i) Whether the accident had taken place due to involvement of car No. HR -01N -8381 causing deaths of Sachin, Bharat Bhushan, Sandeep and Gaurav Gupta, as alleged? OPP ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP iii) Whether insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement? OPR - 3. iv) Relief. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants held that the accident occurred on account of involvement of Car No. HR -01N -8381, resulting into deaths of Sachin, Bharat Bhushan, Sandeep and Gaurav Gupta. Under issues No. 2 and 3, the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,500/ - including Rs. 2500/ - towards loss of estate and Rs. 2000/ - on account of funeral expenses. Further, respondent No. 1 being owner of the car was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 3.5.2008 awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,500/ - to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement by the claimants.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 -A of the Act and the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3000/ - per month, thus, making an annual income at Rs. 36,000/ -. He referred to Second Schedule to the Act and urged that it has been provided thereunder that deduction of 1/3rd be made for self expenses and after that deduction, dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 24,000/ - per annum. It was pointed out that suitable multiplier as per Second Schedule was 17 and, therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000/ -. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 2000/ - on account of funeral charges and Rs. 2500/ - on account of loss of estate was also claimed. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,12,500/ - has been claimed as compensation by the claimants. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in FAO No. 5743 of 2011 (Chander Rani v. Surinder Singh) decided on 27.9.2012 and FAO No. 2448 of 2009 (Smt. Ranjiv Kaur v. Raghbir Singh and others) decided on 11.5.2012, to contend that in the cases where the deceased was bachelor and the claimants were parents even then the claimants were entitled to the same amount. According to the learned counsel, Policy Ex.RA was a package policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment to the claimants.;