NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUKHRAM MASTRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by The New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/insurer'), being aggrieved by the final award dated March 6, 2018, passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Presiding Officer - Ku. Sangh Pushpa Bhatpahari) in Claim Case No. 67/2017, (Sukhram and others vs. Ravijeet and others). The appellant seeks to set aside or modify the impugned award on various grounds, including the erroneous assessment of dependency, income, future prospects, and consortium, the excessive interest awarded, and the non-joinder of necessary parties.

(2.) As per averments made in the claim petition, on May 14, 2017, at about 3:30 AM, minor Dilharan Singh (12 years old) and others were returning from a wedding in a Maruti Omni van and on way, it collided with a trailer bearing registration No. CG 15/A.C./4215 driven by Naseer Khan/respondent No.4 herein. The accident resulted in four deaths, including Dilharan Singh. His parents, Sukhram and Rampatia Bai, filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.23,30,000.00. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,78,000.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal by the Appellant/Insurance Company.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) erroneously awarded compensation to the parents of the 12-year-old deceased minor, Dilharan Singh, on several grounds: firstly, that the parents (aged 40 and 38) were not dependents of the minor; secondly, the tribunal wrongly assumed the minor's income at Rs.6,000.00 per month without any documentary evidence; thirdly, the award of "future prospects" to a 12-year-old was incorrect; fourthly, the tribunal wrongly awarded "consortium" to the parents; fifthly, the interest rate of 9% yearly from the date of application was improperly granted; and finally, the entire claim petition should have been dismissed due to the non-impleading of the owner, insurance company, and driver of the Maruti van as necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned award and be exonerated from payment of compensation, with an order for reimbursement of any amount already paid.