Tejinder Singh Dhindsa JUDGMENT
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
1. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, owner of the vehicle in question has filed the instant appeal assailing the award dated 9.8.2017 passed by the M.A.C.T, Rup Nagar.
2. Brief facts may be noticed at the outset. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs on account of death of Nitish Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.3.2015. Claimants were the parents, sister and brother of the deceased. In the claim petition it was asserted that on 25.3.2015 Nitish Kumar (since deceased) was proceeding from Chandigarh to Ghanauli on his motorcycle bearing registration no. PB-12P-7647. At about 9.30 P.M. a truck bearing registration no. HR-64-1253 came from the back side (Rup Nagar side) and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck with the motorcycle and on account of which Nitish Kumar fell down and his head was crushed under the tyre of the truck. Nitish Kumar is stated to have died at the spot. FIR No. 21 dated 26.3.2015 came to be lodged at Police Station, Sadar Rup Nagar on the statement of uncle of the deceased namely Ritesh @ Hitesh Kumar.
3. The claim petition came to be contested by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in terms of filing separate written statements. The factum of accident was denied and it was further submitted that the FIR in question does not reflect the registration number of the vehicle in question. Respondent no. 3-Insurance Company filed a written statement taking a preliminary objection that the insurance policy had been manipulated by the owner/present appellant and that no policy covering the period 15.3.2015 to 14.3.2016 had ever been issued by any official of the Insurance Company. It was further stated that even a complaint dated 8.6.2016 had been lodged with the police against the owner of the vehicle in such regard.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
"1. Whether Nitish Kumar had died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.03.2015 at about 9.30 pm, due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HP-64-1253 being driven by respondent no. 2 as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed? OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the respondent no. 2 was not having valid documents at the time of accident? OPD
5. Relief."
5. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has placed reliance on the statements of PW-1 Kanwal Kumar and PW-3 Ritesh @ Hitesh Kumar, who claimed to be eye witnesses to the accident as also the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that had been presented against the driver of the vehicle in question namely Rajesh Pathania and has recorded a finding with regard to involvement of the offending truck in question in the accident and which resulted in the death of Nitish Kumar. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 25,000/- per month, age has been accepted as 23 years at the time of accident, 50% deduction has been made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and a multiplier of 18 has been applied to calculated the compensation amount of Rs. 27 lakhs. An additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses has also been awarded. By taking notice of the statement recorded of the owner/present appellant, who appeared as RW-1 and admitted that his vehicle was not insured at the time of accident, Insurance Company has been absolved of the burden of the compensation.
6. Counsel representing the appellant/owner of the vehicle argues that it is a case o........