IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 58 of 2004 Date of decision: 14.7.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ……….Petitioner Versus Rupa Devi & Ors. ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 7. None for other respondents. Surjit Singh , J.(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to seek the quashing of award dated 2.9.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in a case of Motor Vehicle Accident, by which a sum of Rs. 13,02,000/- has been awarded by way of compensation. 3. Deceased Deep Chand was employed as a teacher and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 10,045/-. He had a wife, one major daughter, two minor daughters, one minor son and a father dependant upon him for their likelihood. He died in a vehicular accident. His dependants i.e. wife, father, daughters and son filed a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation. Petitioner was impleaded as Insurer of the vehicle. It did not make any application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to seek leave of the Court to take the defences, other than those mentioned under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It took the plea that the person who was driving the offending truck did not possess a valid driving licence, but no evidence was led to prove the plea. 4. Tribunal framed various issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and passed the awarded to the aforesaid effect. Award has been challenged on the grounds that the quantum of compensation is disproportionately on the higher side and that unit based principle has been adopted to work out the compensation despite the fact that that principle has become absolute. Also, it is stated that by the time the case matured for final hearing, petitioner could not collect evidence with regard to its plea that the offending truck was being driven by a person who did not possess a licence and the evidence qua the said plea has now been collected. An application has also been moved under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of this Court to lead additional evidence. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Deceased’s monthly income was Rs. 10,050/-. This fact is not disputed. A sum of Rs. 3,050/- has been deducted from the income of the deceased on account on his own expenses. That means almost 1/3rd of his earnings have been deducted on account of 3 deceased’s expenses. He had a widow, a father, three minor children and one major daughter dependant upon him and if the unit system were applied, deduction on account of deceased’s own expenses from the income would not have been more than 20% i.e. 1/5th. Therefore, the plea that the Tribunal has deducted less amount of money out of the earnings of the deceased on account of his own expenses cannot be sustained. As regards the contention that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid and effective licence, the right course for the petitioner was to have filed an appeal. It cannot be allowed to raise this kind of plea, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. July 14, 2010, (vs)