JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'). Subject matter of the present appeal is award, dated 11.3.2015, made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C. Petition No.0100034 of 2011, titled Smt. Banku Devi versus M/s Snow View Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and ors. vide which the compensation to the tune of Rs.29,72,315/- (Rupees twenty nine lacs, seventy two thousand three hundred fifteen) was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The facts material and relevant, as alleged in the petition, in brief, are as under: As per the claimant the facts are that her son Rakesh Kumar, aged about 27 years, on 30.11.2010, at 7.45 pm, was travelling in Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HP-06-4111; when it reached Wazir Bawari near Dakolar, on NH-22, it was hit by Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.HP01-TC-03 coming from opposite side, which was driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently. The Mahindra Scorpio struck against Maruti Van due to which, Rakesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to MGMSC, Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and, thereafter, to PGI, Chandigarh and remained there from 03.12.2010 to 07.12.2010 and succumbed to injuries. His post-mortem was conducted at PGI, Chandigarh and the cause of death was stated to be septicemia shock as a result of traumatic injuries on left lower limb. FIR No.217/2010, dated 1.12.2010 was came to be registered against respondent No.2, at Police Station, Rampur, under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged that the deceased was working with Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Rampur and he was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/- p.m. and was earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and horticulture pursuits. The respondent/claimant is the mother of the deceased and the deceased was unmarried. She is claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs) or more alongwith interest therein @ 12% per annum under various heads on account of death of her young son. 3. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and horticulture pursuits. The respondent/claimant is the mother of the deceased and the deceased was unmarried. She is claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs) or more alongwith interest therein @ 12% per annum under various heads on account of death of her young son. 3. The case of the claimant is that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.2, driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The Insurance Company and other respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed its reply separately. Respondent No.1, in its reply, raised preliminary objection qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable and on merits, the factum of the accident having occurred with Mahindra Scorpio on 30.11.2010 at 8.00 pm at Wazir Bawari near Dakolar NH-22 stands admitted. However, the mode and manner in which the same allegedly took place, has been denied and controverted. It is averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No.HP-06-4111 by respondent No.4. It has been alleged that respondent No.2, being the driver of Mahindra Scorpio, was driving the vehicle cautiously and there was no negligence on his part. Also the monthly income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.18,516/- per month has been denied and disputed and the claim has been termed as excessive and exorbitant. 5. Respondent No.2 i.e. driver of Mahindra Scorpio Jeep, in question, has although admitted the factum of accident having occurred with his vehicle, however, he has denied his rash and negligent act in driving the same being its cause. 6. Respondent No.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager has filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability and violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has been alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Apart from this, there are violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 7. Respondent No. 4 is the owner and driver of Maruti Van in question. He has admitted the factum of accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scropio by respondent No.2. 8. Apart from this, there are violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 7. Respondent No. 4 is the owner and driver of Maruti Van in question. He has admitted the factum of accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scropio by respondent No.2. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication on 22.2.2012:- "1. Whether late Sh. Rakesh Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-01-TC-03 (Scorpio) being driven by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the accident in question had solely taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-06- 4111 being driven by its owner-cumdriver, as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the offending vehicle No.HP-01- TC-03 (Scorpio) was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3. 5. Whether respondent No.2, at the relevant time, was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3. 6. Whether the offending vehicle HP-01-TC03 (Scorpio) at the relevant time was being plied without valid documents, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Relief." 9. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the owner/insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently at the time of accident and caused accident. 10. After deciding Issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and Issue Nos. 3 to 6 in negative, the learned Tribunal awarded the impugned compensation amount, hence, the present appeal. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was Sales Manager Trainee and his income was not more than Rs.12,000/- per month. He has further argued that he was temporary employee and the compensation granted was too much and on the higher side. He has further argued that otherwise also, as the Driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the whole compensation. 13. Mr. He has further argued that he was temporary employee and the compensation granted was too much and on the higher side. He has further argued that otherwise also, as the Driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the whole compensation. 13. Mr. Sanehi, learned counsel appearing for the sole claimant has argued that the award is as per law and is required to be upheld and the income is taken rightly as he was getting incentives and other perks also. She has further argued that he was not a self-employee and 50% increase in salary was rightly given by the learned Court below. 14. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) has argued that the vehicle in question, was being driven very safely and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. 15. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has also argued that the vehicle was not driven in rash and negligent manner as has been held by the learned Trial Court. 16. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 17. At the very outset, as far as the rash and negligent driving is concerned, it has come on record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., versus Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 506, Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Joaquin Xavier Cruz and Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 646 and Smt. Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and others, (2014) AIRSCW 2053, held that strict pleadings and proof are not required for determining the claim petition as it is a non-adversarial litigation. 18. Pw2 is the eye witness and PW1/B is the copy of First Information Report. From its perusal, it is evident that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scorpio Jeep No.HP-01- TC-03 by respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 in his statement as RW-1, has admitted that FIR was registered against him with respect to this accident and criminal case is pending against him. From its perusal, it is evident that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scorpio Jeep No.HP-01- TC-03 by respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 in his statement as RW-1, has admitted that FIR was registered against him with respect to this accident and criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and by applying the principle of res ipso loquitur, rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No.2, in driving the vehicle in question, resulting accident and death of Rakesh Kumar (deceased) has been proved. 19. This Court, thus, finds that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court suffers from no illegality. Further, the income of the deceased was rightly taken, as he was not only getting the basic pay but he was also getting the incentives. The respondents have denied and disputed that the deceased was working as an Executive with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/-per month. Smt. Banku Devi, Respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner before the Ld. Court below has examined Ashish Pathania, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation, as PW-3 and Surinder Kumar, Executive HR Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation, as PW-4. These witnesses have proved on record the pay slips and salary certificates Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/F. These witnesses have also clearly and categorically have proved that the deceased Rakesh Kumar was working as an Executive with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation and his monthly salary was Rs.18,516/-. The petitioner by examining the officials of the aforesaid Corporation along with salary certificate and pay slips Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/F has proved on record that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/- per month. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the deceased was supplementing his income by doing horticulture and agriculture pursuits. Therefore, in order to compute the compensation, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.18,516/-. 20. Further, as he was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation ibid, hence, 50% increase is required to be given towards his salary and so the learned Court below has committed no illegality in this regard. 21. Therefore, in order to compute the compensation, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.18,516/-. 20. Further, as he was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation ibid, hence, 50% increase is required to be given towards his salary and so the learned Court below has committed no illegality in this regard. 21. Now, as far as loss of love and affection is concerned, the learned Court below has granted Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, which amount is required to be deducted from the compensation awarded and the funeral charges are reduced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.25,000/-, as awarded by the learned Court below. Nothing can be awarded for loss of love and affection and so, the above award is required to be reduced by Rs. 1,10,000/- only. 22. The net result of the above discussion is that the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.29,72,315/- (-) Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.28,62,315/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs sixty two thousand three hundred fifteen). Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.28,62,315/- only. Since the claimant is the mother of the deceased, hence, the entire compensation is required to be given her. No other point has neither been argued nor pressed for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'). Subject matter of the present appeal is award, dated 11.3.2015, made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C. Petition No.0100034 of 2011, titled Smt. Banku Devi versus M/s Snow View Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and ors. vide which the compensation to the tune of Rs.29,72,315/- (Rupees twenty nine lacs, seventy two thousand three hundred fifteen) was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. vide which the compensation to the tune of Rs.29,72,315/- (Rupees twenty nine lacs, seventy two thousand three hundred fifteen) was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The facts material and relevant, as alleged in the petition, in brief, are as under: As per the claimant the facts are that her son Rakesh Kumar, aged about 27 years, on 30.11.2010, at 7.45 pm, was travelling in Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HP-06-4111; when it reached Wazir Bawari near Dakolar, on NH-22, it was hit by Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.HP01-TC-03 coming from opposite side, which was driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently. The Mahindra Scorpio struck against Maruti Van due to which, Rakesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to MGMSC, Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and, thereafter, to PGI, Chandigarh and remained there from 03.12.2010 to 07.12.2010 and succumbed to injuries. His post-mortem was conducted at PGI, Chandigarh and the cause of death was stated to be septicemia shock as a result of traumatic injuries on left lower limb. FIR No.217/2010, dated 1.12.2010 was came to be registered against respondent No.2, at Police Station, Rampur, under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged that the deceased was working with Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Rampur and he was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/- p.m. and was earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and horticulture pursuits. The respondent/claimant is the mother of the deceased and the deceased was unmarried. She is claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs) or more alongwith interest therein @ 12% per annum under various heads on account of death of her young son. 3. The case of the claimant is that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.2, driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The Insurance Company and other respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed its reply separately. Respondent No.1, in its reply, raised preliminary objection qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable and on merits, the factum of the accident having occurred with Mahindra Scorpio on 30.11.2010 at 8.00 pm at Wazir Bawari near Dakolar NH-22 stands admitted. Respondent No.1, in its reply, raised preliminary objection qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable and on merits, the factum of the accident having occurred with Mahindra Scorpio on 30.11.2010 at 8.00 pm at Wazir Bawari near Dakolar NH-22 stands admitted. However, the mode and manner in which the same allegedly took place, has been denied and controverted. It is averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No.HP-06-4111 by respondent No.4. It has been alleged that respondent No.2, being the driver of Mahindra Scorpio, was driving the vehicle cautiously and there was no negligence on his part. Also the monthly income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.18,516/- per month has been denied and disputed and the claim has been termed as excessive and exorbitant. 5. Respondent No.2 i.e. driver of Mahindra Scorpio Jeep, in question, has although admitted the factum of accident having occurred with his vehicle, however, he has denied his rash and negligent act in driving the same being its cause. 6. Respondent No.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager has filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability and violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has been alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Apart from this, there are violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 7. Respondent No. 4 is the owner and driver of Maruti Van in question. He has admitted the factum of accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scropio by respondent No.2. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication on 22.2.2012:- "1. Whether late Sh. Rakesh Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-01-TC-03 (Scorpio) being driven by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the accident in question had solely taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-06- 4111 being driven by its owner-cumdriver, as alleged? OPR-1. 4. OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the accident in question had solely taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-06- 4111 being driven by its owner-cumdriver, as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the offending vehicle No.HP-01- TC-03 (Scorpio) was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3. 5. Whether respondent No.2, at the relevant time, was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3. 6. Whether the offending vehicle HP-01-TC03 (Scorpio) at the relevant time was being plied without valid documents, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Relief." 9. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the owner/insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently at the time of accident and caused accident. 10. After deciding Issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and Issue Nos. 3 to 6 in negative, the learned Tribunal awarded the impugned compensation amount, hence, the present appeal. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was Sales Manager Trainee and his income was not more than Rs.12,000/- per month. He has further argued that he was temporary employee and the compensation granted was too much and on the higher side. He has further argued that otherwise also, as the Driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the whole compensation. 13. Mr. Sanehi, learned counsel appearing for the sole claimant has argued that the award is as per law and is required to be upheld and the income is taken rightly as he was getting incentives and other perks also. She has further argued that he was not a self-employee and 50% increase in salary was rightly given by the learned Court below. 14. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) has argued that the vehicle in question, was being driven very safely and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. 15. Mr. 14. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) has argued that the vehicle in question, was being driven very safely and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. 15. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has also argued that the vehicle was not driven in rash and negligent manner as has been held by the learned Trial Court. 16. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 17. At the very outset, as far as the rash and negligent driving is concerned, it has come on record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., versus Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 506, Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Joaquin Xavier Cruz and Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 646 and Smt. Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and others, (2014) AIRSCW 2053, held that strict pleadings and proof are not required for determining the claim petition as it is a non-adversarial litigation. 18. Pw2 is the eye witness and PW1/B is the copy of First Information Report. From its perusal, it is evident that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Scorpio Jeep No.HP-01- TC-03 by respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 in his statement as RW-1, has admitted that FIR was registered against him with respect to this accident and criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and by applying the principle of res ipso loquitur, rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No.2, in driving the vehicle in question, resulting accident and death of Rakesh Kumar (deceased) has been proved. 19. This Court, thus, finds that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court suffers from no illegality. Further, the income of the deceased was rightly taken, as he was not only getting the basic pay but he was also getting the incentives. The respondents have denied and disputed that the deceased was working as an Executive with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/-per month. Smt. Banku Devi, Respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner before the Ld. The respondents have denied and disputed that the deceased was working as an Executive with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/-per month. Smt. Banku Devi, Respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner before the Ld. Court below has examined Ashish Pathania, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation, as PW-3 and Surinder Kumar, Executive HR Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation, as PW-4. These witnesses have proved on record the pay slips and salary certificates Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/F. These witnesses have also clearly and categorically have proved that the deceased Rakesh Kumar was working as an Executive with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation and his monthly salary was Rs.18,516/-. The petitioner by examining the officials of the aforesaid Corporation along with salary certificate and pay slips Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/F has proved on record that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.18,516/- per month. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the deceased was supplementing his income by doing horticulture and agriculture pursuits. Therefore, in order to compute the compensation, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.18,516/-. 20. Further, as he was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation ibid, hence, 50% increase is required to be given towards his salary and so the learned Court below has committed no illegality in this regard. 21. Now, as far as loss of love and affection is concerned, the learned Court below has granted Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, which amount is required to be deducted from the compensation awarded and the funeral charges are reduced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.25,000/-, as awarded by the learned Court below. Nothing can be awarded for loss of love and affection and so, the above award is required to be reduced by Rs. 1,10,000/- only. 22. The net result of the above discussion is that the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.29,72,315/- (-) Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.28,62,315/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs sixty two thousand three hundred fifteen). Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.28,62,315/- only. Since the claimant is the mother of the deceased, hence, the entire compensation is required to be given her. No other point has neither been argued nor pressed for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of accordingly.