SHRI HARI SINGH Vs. DAROGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by award dated 13-01-2012 passed by the VI Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.60/2011 whereby, the Claims Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.3,51,000/- in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Urmila Devi to the appellants. In this appeal, the appellants are also seeking direction to fasten the liability of payment of compensation over respondent No.3 -National Insurance Company Ltd. under 'Pay and Recover' condition as Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of award and cannot escape the liability.

(2.) Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) are family members of the deceased Urmila Devi out of which claimant No.1 -Hari Singh is her husband and all others are her children. Deceased Urmila was working in K.M.J. Company as Organizer Executive and was doing the job of commission agent in insurance sector. As per the claimants, she was receiving Rs.10,000/- as commission and was also having income from tailoring work in the name of Sheela Tailoring and receiving Rs.6000/- from there. She met with an accident on 06-06-2010 when she was moving in a tractor along with some family members, at that time a bus being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently caused accident to the said tractor, resulting into death of wife of claimant No.1.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal rejected the submission of claimants regarding her income as commission agent or tailor and found the notional income as Rs.3,000/- and then calculated the compensation accordingly. Besides that, at the relevant point of time, respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) did not possess the driving licence and his driving licence was renewed later on. Therefore, the Insurance Company had been exonerated from the liability and liability has been fastened over respondents No.1&2 -driver and owner of the vehicle respectively. Therefore, claimants have preferred this appeal.