Indu Malhotra JUDGMENT
Indu Malhotra, J.
Leave granted.
1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain counts by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in FAO No. 6943 of 2015 dated 27.09.2017, to be contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under:
On 01.12.2013, the deceased was riding his motorcycle (Registration No. HR-71B-7681) from Ambli Village to Arjun Majra Village. A relative of the deceased-Mr. Rakesh Kumar was following him on a separate motorcycle on the Sadhaura-Naraingarh Road. A Renault car bearing Registration No. HR-02-AB-4646 driven by Respondent No. 3, came from the side, and hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The accident was witnessed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar.
As a result of the accident, the deceased fell and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Naraingarh from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On 02.12.2013 the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Panchkula where the doctors declared him dead.
On the same day, F.I.R. No. 337 was registered at Police Station, Naraingarh on the statement of Mr. Rakesh Kumar who was an eye-witness to the accident.
3. The father, brother, and sister of the deceased filed Claim Petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar ("hereinafter referred to as MACT") praying for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 along with Interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the eye-witness was examined before the MACT. He deposed stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing Namkeen products. The Claimants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 per month. However, they were unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. The MACT took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e. Rs. 5,342 per month on the basis of the Notification dated 13.08.2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wages for different categories of work.
The MACT awarded compensation to the family of the deceased as follows:
The MACT did not award any compensation to the brother of the deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependent. Compensation was awarded to the aged father and the unmarried sister of the deceased, who were held to be dependents.
The Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle-Respondent No. 3 both were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-i.e. the father and sister of the deceased filed an Appeal against the order of the MACT before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
The High Court held that the facts relating to the accident were admitted and proved before the........